Mumbai Aurangabad Court August 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.
Arun S/O. Sudhakar JaIn Vs. Vivek S/O. Padamrajendra Mahajan and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
Top of Form 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, as well as, heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant i.e. original complainant, for setting aside the order dated 10th May 2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Criminal Bail Application No. 294/2011, granting bail to respondent no.1 herein, and also requesting to issue directions to arrest the respondent no.1. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The applicant, namely, Arun s/o. Sudhakar Jain, is the original complainant who filed the FIR on 30th March 2011, under Crime No. 45/2011, with Police Station, Paranda (District : Osmanabad), against respondent no.1 herein, namely, Vivek s/o. Padamrajendra Mahajan, and the other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 306, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant had a daughter, namely, Vijaya who married with ...
Vikas S/O Bhagwan Pawar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. Heard learned Advocates and perused the record. 2. In all ten accused were tried for offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 with Sections 149 and 302 with 149, 307 with 149 of IPC. All accused have been convicted towards all the offenses charged and have been sentenced. 3. In these appeals, the accused have challenged the judgment and order of conviction. 4. Cause of death is "Hypo-volumic shock due to compound fracture of upper end of both Tibia and fibula with lower end of humurus leading to cardio-respiration arrest" 5. The prosecution has relied upon eye witnesses, namely, PW No.3 Kuldip Ragde, PW No.5 Dhananjay Hande, PW No.6 Balaji Pandhare, PW No. 10 Bharat Ragade, while other witnesses pertain to other matters pertaining to the investigation. 6. PW No.1 Dr. Ravindra Mali is the medical witness who has conducted the post mortem examination. Other medical witness is PW No.2 Dr.Sanjay Walke and PW No.15 Dr. Vilas Deshmukh. The medical certificates, at Exhs.75, 76...
Dinesh S/O Ramchandra Tiwari Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
Top of Form 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2) Heard both the sides and perused the record. 3) This writ petition, filed by the detenu, challenges the order dated 5th April, 2011 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jalgaon, exercising powers under Section 3(1)(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing And Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act.) 4) Factual background of the petitioner and contentions raised by the petitioner are summarized as follows, - (a) In 1999, the petitioner was holding a licence of wholesale distributorship for sale of kerosene. He continued to hold the licence up to 2003-2004. (b) He withdrew from the business of sellling of kerosene owing to change in the policy of distributing kerosene through public distribution system (PDS) which is known as "blue kerosene" by the State Government. (c) He has thereafter started business of sweet mart. (d) He claims to be a law-abiding and law...
Sakhybai Ramdhan Jadhav and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
Top of Form 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. By the present application, the applicants have questioned the correctness of the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, in Sessions Case No. 35/2008 thereby directing to add the present applicants as accused in the said case, by invoking the powers vested in the said Court u/s 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP also perused the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants, by drawing my attention to the impugned order, urged that the trial court has committed an error while passing the impugned order on the basis of statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation and evidence in the trial is yet to commence. It is further urged that it is the pre-requisite condition to invoke the provisions of ...
Raghunath Kishanrao Thigle Vs. Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. In pursuance to the notice issued for final disposal, this matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. In this civil revision application, the judgment and order dated 28.10.2009passed by the Joint C.J.S.D., Osmanabad in Special Civil Suit No.117 of 1999 is under challenge. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that if at all the Court wanted to dismiss the suit for non presence of the plaintiff or his pleader, the suit ought to have been dismissed in default as contemplated under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 3 r/w Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for applicant invited my attention to the impugned judgment and submitted that it was also open for the trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits. However, from perusal of the reasons recorded by the trial Court, it does not appear that the trial Court has appreciated the documentary evidence p...
Ujwala W/O. Madhukamal Hiwale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, as well as, heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the original complainant, namely, Ujwala w/o. Madhukamal Hiwale, for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2, namely, Hirabai w/o. Ramesh Ghodke, which was granted to her by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Ahmednagar, by order dated 27th June 2011, passed below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 808/2011. 3. It was canvassed by learned Adv. Mr. A.K. Gawali, for the applicant (original complainant), that the incident of death of victim Smita took place on 16th June 2011, and thereafter, respondent no.2 was arrested under Crime No. 214/2011, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, and she was enlarged on bail after 11 days i.e. on 27th June 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Ahmednagar, which is canvassed to be objectionable. Learned Coun...
Dinesh S/O Amratlal Thakkar Vs. Premchand S/O Bhagwandas Wakharia
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order of eviction dated 30th June, 2001 passed by Rent Controller Nanded, in proceeding No RCA (15)-10/96 and the judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2003 in HRCA No. 16 of 2001. The applicant-tenant herein is original defendant and respondent is landlord. 2. Respondent initiated proceedings against the applicant herein before the Rent Controller under section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (For short "said Act"), on three grounds i.e.(i) willful default in payment of rent by tenant for period from January 1993 to February 1996, (ii) Alternate accommodation secured by tenant, (iii) Bonafide requirement of landlord and that the tenant has locked the suit premises and kept it out of use. 3. The applicant herein appeared before the Rent Controller and filed written statement contending therein that he is tenant of the suit premises from last ten years having tenancy over fiv...
Priti Dinesh Hanchate Vs. Dhule Charitable Society Dhule and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 12-01-2004 passed by this Court. By the said order, this Court directed the respondents herein, to reinstate the petitioner herein. When the matter was called out for hearing on 17-08-2011, none appeared for the petitioner. The matter remained part heard. Today when matter is called out for final hearing, none appears for the petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that, the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in Pharmacy College. Letter was received from the Pharmacy Council that M.Sc. Microbiology is not prescribed qualification for the post of Lecturer. There was specific communication from the Pharmacy Council that unless the respondents takes appropriate steps to remove the petitioner from the post of Lecturer, since she is not possessing requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer, appropriate action will be taken against the respondents, therefore, respondents ...
Ajay S/O Manmathappa Shete Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 2. Reply of Respondent No. 2 is already on record. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is running a Hotel/Lodge at Osmanabad, known as Pratham Lodge. 4. Petitioner was served with a notice of show cause dated 17.2.2011, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Osmanabad. It pertained to incidents, which occurred in July 2010, of allowing prostitutes to use Rooms in Lodge. Petitioner was called upon to explain as to why action under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short "ITP Act"), should not be taken against him. It was alleged in the said notice that the premises of Pratham Hotel, run in the petitioner's building, were used for allowing the girls and women for prostitution and the premises are situated within 200 meters of public places. 5. Time of seven days was allowed to the petitioner to submit his say. The petitioner furnished his reply dated 1.3.2011. 6. The Sub Divisional Magistr...
Sunil S/O Madanlal Agrawal Vs. Jawaharlal S/O Nandlal Chittarke and an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
1. This Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order passed below Exh.21 in Special Civil Suit No. 510 of 2010, dated 17th June, 2011. . With the consent of the parties Appeal from Order is taken up for final hearing. 2. Background facts for filing this Appeal from Order are as under: . On 04.10.2010, appellant herein filed Special Civil Suit NO. 510 of 2010 for mandatory injunction regarding agreement of re-conveyance dated 21th June 2005, executed by respondent NO.1 in favour of appellant and for recovery of possession of the suit property from respondent No.1 and further for perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.2 from creating any sort of third party interest in the suit property. 3. It is contention of the appellant that financial condition of respondent NO.1 is good, therefore, appellant in the year 2005 on or about second week of June, 2005 approached to the respondent NO.1 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one Lakh Fifty Thousand) for his household and domest...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »