Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioner no.1 is a minority institution eligible for protection available to the minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution. Petitioner no.2 is the school run by petitioner no. 1 Institution. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are employed as Shikshan Sevaks in petitioner no.2 school run by petitioner no.1 Institution. 3. Petitioner Institution tendered proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, proposal tendered by petitioner Institution was turned down by the Education Officer. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 approached the Grievance Committee for entertaining complaints of Shikshan Sevaks, Aurangabad, seeking relief of quashment of the order passed by the Education Officer on 14.03.2011, rejecting the proposal tendered by petitioner Institution for grant of approval to the appointment of concerned Respondents. The appeals tende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.V.NIRGUDE, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2009, dated 30th October, 2010, convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were ordered to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default clause for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also separately sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default clause. 2. The facts leading to the litigation can be stated as under:- There were in all four accused before the learned Sessions Court. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Pen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. The petitioners herein, who are the original plaintiffs, have filed Special Civil Suit No.35 of 2008 for specific performance of the agreement of sale against the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that, Ganpatrao Raoji Bharitkar, entered into an agreement of sale for consideration of Rs. 71,00,000/- and an earnest amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid on 2nd June, 2005. Ganpatrao had executed agreement of sale on 9th June, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioners paid amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft dated 9th June, 2005, Rs.20,50,000/- vide Cheque dated 11th August, 2005 and further amount of Rs.20,50,000/- vide Cheque dated 20th October, 2005. Total consideration paid was Rs.71,00,000/-. However, unfortunately, before the sale deed can be executed, said Ganpatrao Bharitkar died on 8th November, 2005. The petitioners requested the respondents to execute the sale deed, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: The employer has assailed the judgment delivered by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation thereby allowing the application for compensation filed by the claimants. 2. Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants are not entitled to receive the compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The deceased was an insured person as defined in Sec. 2(14) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (hereinafter referred as to "E.S.I. Act" for the sake of brevity). The claimants were the dependents of the deceased as laid down in Sec. 2(6A) of the said Act. By virtue of Sec.53 of the E.S.I. Act, the claimants are not entitled for any amount. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of A. Trehan Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and another reported in 1996 (4) S.C.C. 255. The learned counsel also submits that the death of the deceased was not caused by an accident arising out of or in the course...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned APP. 2] This is a letter petition. The petitioner is a convict. He claims that he has been designated as a night watchman in the jail. 3] Petitioner was released on furlough for 30 days, and he has returned on 7.2.2012. Thereafter, on 6.3.2012, the petitioner has applied for parole on the ground that health of his daughter Sangita is unwell and special attention to her is needed. 4] Petitioner has relied upon a medical certificate, which is dated 10.4.2012 and is issued by Dr.Mrs.Deoyani Deshpande, M.B.B.S., D.A., of Aurangabad.. The text of certificate reads as follows:- "This is to certify that Smt.Sangita w/o Dulersingh Jarhade is suffering from severe Icterus and Anaemia. Her husband should be with his wife for the care of her at least one month starting from today.Sd/Dr.DeoyaniDeshpande" 5] The petitioner's request for parole has been rejected by orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned APP. 2] This is a letter petition. The petitioner is a convict. He claims that he has been designated as a night watchman in the jail. 3] Petitioner was released on furlough for 30 days, and he has returned on 7.2.2012. Thereafter, on 6.3.2012, the petitioner has applied for parole on the ground that health of his daughter Sangita is unwell and special attention to her is needed. 4] Petitioner has relied upon a medical certificate, which is dated 10.4.2012 and is issued by Dr.Mrs.Deoyani Deshpande, M.B.B.S., D.A., of Aurangabad.. The text of certificate reads as follows:- "This is to certify that Smt.Sangita w/o Dulersingh Jarhade is suffering from severe Icterus and Anaemia. Her husband should be with his wife for the care of her at least one month starting from today.Sd/Dr.DeoyaniDeshpande" 5] The petitioner's request for parole has been rejected by orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1 This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Accountant cum Tenancy Awal Karkun, Kopargaon on 27th December, 1980, in Tenancy Case No.89 of 1974, judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner in Tenancy Appeal No.161 of 1981, dated 16th February, 1985, and the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/IV5/85 (Tenancy B94/85), dated 16th September, 1985. 2 The Petitioner is tenant and Respondents are owners / landlords of the suit property. The subject matter of the present writ petition i.e. suit land has been referred to by the learned Tenancy Awal Karkun. Suffice to note that, four small pieces of agricultural lands, situated at village Shirdi, Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar are the subject matters of the present writ petition. The suit property was allegedly leased out by deceased Jijaba in favour of the Petitioner by registered lease deed dated 18th December,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2011, passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed, in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2007, thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2007, passed by the Rent Controller/Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Beed, in File No. 98/RCA/DESK/03. 3. The revision applicant herein, is the tenant and the respondent herein, is the landlord. The respondent filed petition before the Rent Controller stating therein that, he is the owner of the suit premises as described in paragraph-1 of the petition filed before the Rent Controller. The revision applicant i.e. original respondent, is in possession of the suit premises, as tenant under the lease agreement entered into between the parties in the month of October, 1995. It was the case of the landlord that, though the lease agreement was entered between the parties in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2011, passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed, in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2007, thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2007, passed by the Rent Controller/Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Beed, in File No. 98/RCA/DESK/03. 3. The revision applicant herein, is the tenant and the respondent herein, is the landlord. The respondent filed petition before the Rent Controller stating therein that, he is the owner of the suit premises as described in paragraph-1 of the petition filed before the Rent Controller. The revision applicant i.e. original respondent, is in possession of the suit premises, as tenant under the lease agreement entered into between the parties in the month of October, 1995. It was the case of the landlord that, though the lease agreement was entered between the parties in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1 This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Accountant cum Tenancy Awal Karkun, Kopargaon on 27th December, 1980, in Tenancy Case No.89 of 1974, judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner in Tenancy Appeal No.161 of 1981, dated 16th February, 1985, and the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/IV5/85 (Tenancy B94/85), dated 16th September, 1985. 2 The Petitioner is tenant and Respondents are owners / landlords of the suit property. The subject matter of the present writ petition i.e. suit land has been referred to by the learned Tenancy Awal Karkun. Suffice to note that, four small pieces of agricultural lands, situated at village Shirdi, Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar are the subject matters of the present writ petition. The suit property was allegedly leased out by deceased Jijaba in favour of the Petitioner by registered lease deed dated 18th December,...
Tag this Judgment!