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.
Bhumanna Piraji Narod Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard parties at length. 2. Heard both sides at length. 3. In this petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing the first information report lodged by the respondent No.2. 4. Copy of the written report furnished before Police Station, which is treated as first information report, is on record age Pages 15 and 16. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar took us through the record and the various judgments he relied upon as a foundation for the relief which he has prayed. 6. The substance of the contention of learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar, is summarised as follows:- (1) The contents of the first information report do not disclose commission of offence. (2) Though the document allegedly forged is said to have been prepared by the petitioner, it cannot be demonstrated by the respondent No.2 that said alleged forged document is used in order to divest the ownership or title to the complaint or vest it in the petitioner. (3) Unless and until wron...
Sunita W/O Baliram Pande Vs. Baliram S/O Haribhau Pande
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
Top of Form 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This Misc. Civil Application is filed praying therein, the transfer of the proceedings of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 232 of 2010 filed by the respondent herein, before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. 3. It is the case of the applicant that, the marriage between the applicant and the respondent solemnized on 20-06-1994 at Buldana as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Thereafter, they have started residing at Aurangabad as the respondent is in service in the Company at M.I.D.C. Aurangabad. . It is the case of the applicant that, in spite of more than 16 years are passed after the marriage, they have not blessed by God, they have taken medical treatment and advice of the Doctor, but in vain. On this ground, the respondent herein filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 232 of 2010 in the ...
Parmeshwar S/O Dhondiba Umbre Vs. Mahadeo S/O Waman Raut and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
Top of Form 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner herein, is the original plaintiff and the respondents herein, are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 130 of 2008 which was filed for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Majalgaon. . It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 1,2,4 and 6 to 8 filed their Written Statement on 09-09-2008 as per Exhibit-44 challenging the claim of the petitioner. While respondent Nos. 3,5,9 and 13 to 16 have not filed their Written Statement. Respondent Nos. 10 and 12 are exparte. . On 19-07-2010 the petitioner submitted application for amendment in the plaint on the ground that during pendency of the suit after measurement by the T.I.L.R. respondent Nos. 4 and 6 to 8 have taken possession of portion of the suit land by making encroachment and therefore, the petitioner wish to amend the plaint and further prayed for p...
Bhagwan Trimbak Deokar and ors. Vs. Zilla Parishad
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
Top of Form 1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the workers employed with the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar i.e. the respondent herein. Complaint (ULP) No. 141 of 1987 was filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act") by the petitioners seeking permanency in service. The Industrial Court by its order dated 4th April, 1990 declared that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The respondent was directed to accord the petitioners the status and benefits of permanency with effect from 1st July, 1987. The Industrial Court also directed the respondent to fix the salary and allowance of the petitioners in the time scale as per the posts held by them and to further pay them all monetary benefits, including bonus on or before 30th June, 1990, failing whic...
Waman S/O.Gulab Kadam and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. While rejecting Criminal Application No.2372/2011, moved by the appellants, for their release on bail during the pendancy of this criminal appeal, hearing of the criminal appeal itself was expedited by our order dated 26/07/2011. Hence, this appeal is taken up for final hearing out of turn. 2. The appellants, who stand convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 452 r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation to undergo SI for 6 months for first offence, and to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation to undergo SI for 6 months for the second offence, in Sessions Case No.20/06, by Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, by his judgment and order dated 10/05/2011, have questioned the correctness of their conviction and sentence by the present appeal. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus - (a) I...
Asagarali Abdul HussaIn Bohari Vs. Subhash Zumbarlal Mutha and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. This appeal arose from Regular Civil Suit No. 272 of 1978. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in short can be stated as under :- 3. The plaintiff purchased the suit property which is a building at Ahmednagar. He purchased it from children of one Ibrahim. Children of Ibrahim had mortgaged four rooms and privies etc. situated on first floor (floor above the ground floor) of this building to the defendant/appellant on 12.06.1965, by a registered deed. The contents of the mortgage deed suggest that out of these four rooms, defendant No.1 was already occupying two rooms and the other two rooms were in possession of two different tenants of children of Ibrahim. The other term of this transaction was that after ten years, the children of Ibrahim were entitled to redeem the mortgage by repaying the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The property as said above was sold to the plaintiff by the children of Ibrahim. The plaintiff sought redemption of mortgage but the same was denied. So, the suit was fil...
Smt. Gumfabai Dattalal Jaiswal and anr. Vs. Suresh Laxminarayan Jaiswa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2009, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nanded in HRCA No.1/2007, arising out of the judgment and order dated 16th May, 2007 in Case No.RCA(15)18/1994 passed by the learned SDO/Rent Controller, Nanded. 3) It is the case of the petitioners/tenants that the respondents/landlords filed an Eviction Petition under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Control Act), against the original defendants/tenants, before the SDO/Rent Controller, Nanded, on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord and willful default on the part of the tenants. The Rent Controller rejected the said petition vide judgment and order dated 16th May, 2007. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the presnet respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed H.R.C.A.No.1/2007 in the Court of Dist...
Jitendra Himmat Biraris and ors. Vs. Kiran Gulabrao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. All these petitions involve common question of law and are based on same factual matrix, as such are decided together. 2. The petitioners are elected as councillors of Zilla Parishad, Dhule in the General Elections of 2008 having contested the said elections as belonging to Nationalist Congress Party (hereinafter called as "N.C.P." for the sake of brevity). The party position of elected councillors is as under : 1. Indian National Congress : 21 2. Nationalist Congress Party : 08 3. Shiv Sena : 14 4. Bhartiya Janta Party : 09 5. Independent : 03 Total : 55 3. After the declaration of the result, the Returning Officer called special meeting for the election of the President and Vice President of Zilla Parishad Dhule to be held on 30th December, 2008 at 3.00 p.m. In the said special meeting one Sudhir Sudhakar Jadhav representing Shiv Sena party was elected as President and Bharat Nanabhau Ise representing Bhartiya Janta Party was elected as Vice President. The petitioners cast vote to...
Prakash S/O Bala Dubele and anr. Vs. Janabai W/O Subhash Dubele
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. Heard. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed by the original plaintiff, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 14-03-2011, passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad, in Regular Darkhast No. 38 of 2004. 3. The respondent herein who is original plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 33 of 2001 for relief of permanent injunction and declaration of partition deed as not binding on decree holder along with relief of declaration of ownership. The Trial Court decreed R.C.S. No. 33 of 2001, on 05-08-2002. The original defendant has filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2002 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, vide its order dated 29-011-2003, and confirm the decree passed by the Trial Court. There was another suit R.C.S. No. 117 of 2003, which was filed by original defendant No. 2 against plaintiff, and same suit was also dismissed on 22-06-2006. Thereafter, Second...
Simratmal S/O. Hiralal Gandhi Vs. Kedarnath S/O. Badrinarayan Bang and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.S. Bedre, for the applicant; Adv. Mr. L.B. Pallod, for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. V.S. Badakh, for respondent no.3. 2. None for respondent nos.2 and 4, although served. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. By the present application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that the order passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar, on Exhibit 49, in Summary Trial Case No. 5064/2007, dated 31st October 2009, be quashed and set aside. 5. The applicant herein is the original accused no.2 and the respondent no.1 herein is the original complainant. It is contended that as there were close friendly relations between the applicant and respondent no.1, and since the applicant was in need of amount, the complainant i.e. respondent no.1 herein paid the amount...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›