Mumbai Aurangabad Court March 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shrirampur Municipal Council Vs. Shri V.K. Barde and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
ORAL 1. Petitioner before this Court in both the matters is a local body constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ( hereinafter referred to as 1965 Act) while the Trade Union of its workmen are the respondents. Basic challenge in the 1992 petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to award-II dated 8/10/1987 delivered by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmadnagar in Ref.(IT) 6 of 1984 with prayer to quash relief granted in relation to demand 1,2 & 4.The reference was made by State of Maharashtra under S.12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ie IDA hereafter. Demand no. 1 is about increase in sanctioned posts on establishment schedule of the Petitioner. Demand no. 2 is to grant permanency to all those who have put in more than 180 days work with consequential benefits like pay-scales, D.A.etc & to continue to confer permanency in future on all workmen completing that period. By demand no. 4 the Union sought wages...
Narayan Maruti Waghmode Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
: 1] Both the Appeal are filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No.126/2006 which is decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar Shri M.G.Shevalikar.2] The first appeal is filed by original accused no.1 Shri Narayan Waghmode as he is convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 489A of I.P.C. The second appeal is filed by the State against all the original accused as the trial Court has not convicted accused nos.1,3,10,11,12 and 13 for offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C. and as the trial Court acquitted the remaining accused. Accused Nos.3,10,11,12 and 13 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489B of I.P.C. 3] The facts leading to the institution of these 2 appeals can be stated in brief as below :Police Inspector Shri Mallesh was attached to L.C.B. Ahmednagar. On 13/5/2006, he received information from his informer against accused No.1 Narayan Waghmode that Waghmode was living as a tenant in the house...
Sangram S/O Janardhan Tupe Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
: 1) The petitioner challenges notice dated 26-7-2010 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beed, under sedition 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short, "the Act of 1951'). The notice was issued asking him as to why he should not be externed from Districts of Beed, Osmanabad, Jalna, Ahmednagar and Aurangabad for a period of two years.2) The petitioner contends that he is residing in Beed town since last 25 years. He is a reputed Advocate practicing in District Court Beed since last 9 years. The petitioner submits that, his father was elected as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly and is a social worker. The petitioner is Chairman of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Pimpalwadi and is working as Secretary of Beed Zilla Rashtrawadi Congress Party. The petitioner further contends that, respondent No.4 - Deputy Collector (Employment Guarantee Scheme) and Resident Deputy Collector Beed lodged a complaint against the petitioner and pressurized police to register an ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhausaheb Balaji Korde and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
Judgment 01. Heard learned counsel for the parties.02. By the present appeal, the appellantState has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.3.2000 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, District Ahmednagar, in Regular Criminal Case No.151 of 1994, thereby acquitting all the accused Nos. 1 to 4 (respondents herein) for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with rule 50, punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("PFA Act" for brevity's sake).The factual matrix, which gives rise to present appeal, is as follows.03. PW1 Complainant R.D. Kokadwar, was appointed as Food Inspector under Section 9 of the PFA Act and rules made thereunder, for Ahmednagar District, vide order dated 17.7.1993 by the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State, Bombay who is the Local (Health) Authority for Panchayat Samiti Block areas with Ahmednagar Dist., appointed vide Government Notification dated 15.4.1983. I...
Ramesh Gopinath Jadhav and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
J U D G M E N T :1 Heard Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri V.G.Shelke, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 7.5.1999, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 276 of 1993, thereby convicting the accused nos. 3 to 6 i.e. appellants herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ with default condition for nonpayment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.3 In all, seven accused faced the trial in Sessions Case No. 276 of 1993 before the Sessions Court for the offence punishable, under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. All the accused were acquitted for the ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Prashant S/O Pritamkumar Shegaonkar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
ORAL ORDER : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)1 The learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad has forwarded this reference under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The points formulated by the learned District Judge in the statement submitted to High Court are as noted below :I Whether the interpretation of term "instrument" used in section 147 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 made in the case reported as AIR 1991 SC 401 ( between Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Pramod Gupta) can be extended to the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act viz. for clause no. 16 from Schedule I annexed to Bombay Stamp Act.II Whether in view of the interpretation of term, "instrument" made by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case law, said clause of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act needs to be treated as invalid.III Whether due to interpretation of provisions of Order 21 Rule 94 of Code of Civil Procedure in relation to the provisions of Indian Registration At made in 2007 SCW 4080 ( B. Arvindkumar v. Gov...
Praful S/O Mulchand JaIn Vs. Abdul Sameer S/O Abdul Sajed and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORAL :1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and with consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2 This petition is filed by the petitioner (original accused) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order dated 9.9.2010, passed by the learned 6 District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, regarding nonregistration of Criminal Revision Application be set aside and the said learned Judge be directed to register the said Criminal Revision Application.3 It is the contention of the petitioner that he is dealing in electronic goods as well as development of properties at Aurangabad and was having friendly relations with respondent no.1 i.e. original complainant. Respondent no.1 gave hand loan of Rs. Five Lacks to the petitioner on 15.12.2008 for the short term of 15 days on the request of the petitioner to overcome the financial needs and personal problems of the petitioner. Accordingly, after lapse of 15 days, r...
Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORAL :1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 29.6.2007, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007, thereby punishing the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default, rigorous imprisonment for seven days.2 The factual matrix, which gave rise for the present appeal, can be summarised as under :Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the first informant, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut on 14.11.2005, due to death of Meerabai i.e. daughter of the complainant, criminal law was set into motion and the first information report Exh. 20 was lodged bearing C.R. No. 178 of 2005 in respect of offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused persons thereunder were tried in Sessions Trial No. 8 o...
Dhana Mohan Talele and ors. Vs. Nabab Saraj Tadvi and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
:1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 05061992 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. REV.TRB.82 of 1985 at ExhibitB to the petition and also to the judgment and order dated 13041978 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon, Division Jalgaon, in Adivasi Case No. 179 of 1975.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has failed to consider the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, in many case, that if there is dispute about the status of the persons, who are claiming themselves to be tribals then in that case, the issue whether the persons claiming themselves to be tribals or not, has to be decided by the scrutiny authority. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal failed to see that, the respondents belong to Muslim Pathan Tadvi communities, which is not recognised as a Tribal community under Section 38 of ...
Shri Abdul Kadir S/O. Abdul Kadar Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
ORAL :1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25th October, 1989 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Maharashtra State, Bombay, in Revision Application No. 8 of 1989.2. Upon perusal of the pleadings in the petition, it appears that the petitioner was holding at the relevant time permit No. T.Opp.3027/Aug/84, which was valid up to 26th September, 1987, in respect of M.V. No. MTS 2411. He applied for replacement of the vehicle by higher model, three months before the expiry of the permit. He was permitted to replace the vehicle and 90 days time was allowed by order dated 30th June, 1987. Without taking any steps, the applicant on 01.01.1988 submitted an application to extend the period, but his application was not considered as there was policy of the R.T.O. to grant maximum period of 150 days for the replacement. The request of the petitioner was turned down in view of the policy decision. Said order is dated 28th October, 19883. Aggrieved by order dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »