Mumbai Aurangabad Court August 2012 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.
ishwar S/O Vithalrao Mohite Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner, is a Police Patil and runs a retail kerosene shop at village Ghodki, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad since the year 1997. 3. The respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling explanation from the petitioner as to why the kerosene dealership should not be cancelled as he was appointed as Police Patil. The said notice was issued relying on the Govt. Resolution dated 13/10/2006. The respondent no. 3 thereafter cancelled the kerosene retail licence of the petitioner on the count that petitioner being a Police Patil is a Govt. servant and not entitled for licence of kerosene retail shop. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by order of respondent no. 3 filed Appeal before the Commissioner [Supply]. The Commissioner [Supply] dismissed the said Appeal. The petitioner preferred Revision before the Hon’ble ...
ishwar S/O Vithalrao Mohite Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner, is a Police Patil and runs a retail kerosene shop at village Ghodki, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad since the year 1997. 3. The respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling explanation from the petitioner as to why the kerosene dealership should not be cancelled as he was appointed as Police Patil. The said notice was issued relying on the Govt. Resolution dated 13/10/2006. The respondent no. 3 thereafter cancelled the kerosene retail licence of the petitioner on the count that petitioner being a Police Patil is a Govt. servant and not entitled for licence of kerosene retail shop. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by order of respondent no. 3 filed Appeal before the Commissioner [Supply]. The Commissioner [Supply] dismissed the said Appeal. The petitioner preferred Revision before the Honble Ministe...
Shamsundar S/O Namdeo Barsale and Others Vs. the Divisional Commission ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 23rd December, 2011, in Appeal/CR/115/2011, in which respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were the appellants. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Digras (Kh), Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani. The petitioners moved a common requisition notice for passing ‘No-Confidence-Motion’ against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Learned Divisional Commissioner held that such common notice was illegal, and so, while allowing the appeal, he set aside the resolution passed by the petitioners in the meeting. 2. The only point that the learned counsel for the petitioners raised is that Rule 2 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, is directory and not mandatory. 3. Rule 2 of said Rules reads as under:- “2. (1) The members of a panchayat who desire to more a m...
Ashish S/O Jagannath Mali and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] By the present application filed by the applicants under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants prayed that the first information report and further proceedings of C.R. No. 78 of 2010, registered at Shahada police station under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by respondent no.2 against them, be quashed and set aside. 3] Alternatively, the applicants prayed that respondent no.1 police station officer, Shahada police station be directed to transfer the first information report and papers of C.R. No. 78 of 2010 registered against the applicants at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code to Mukundwadi police station, Aurangabad. 4] The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- The ...
Ramkrishna S/O Tukaram Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties heard finally. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5th October, 2011 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 66 of 2011. 3. The background facts for filing this writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under. It is the case of the petitioners that, there are total number of 7 members in the Village Panchayat, Varkhedi, Taluka Erondol, District Jalgaon. On 30th March, 2011 the petitioners herein, who are the members of village panchayat Varkhedi moved the Tahsildar, Erondol for bringing ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the respondent No.4 who is Sarpanch of the village by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short, “said Act”). On 30th March, 2011 respondent No.3 Tahsildar, Erondol issued notices to the petitioners herein, as well...
Ramkrishna S/O Tukaram Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties heard finally. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5th October, 2011 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 66 of 2011. 3. The background facts for filing this writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under. It is the case of the petitioners that, there are total number of 7 members in the Village Panchayat, Varkhedi, Taluka Erondol, District Jalgaon. On 30th March, 2011 the petitioners herein, who are the members of village panchayat Varkhedi moved the Tahsildar, Erondol for bringing No Confidence Motion against the respondent No.4 who is Sarpanch of the village by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short, said Act). On 30th March, 2011 respondent No.3 Tahsildar, Erondol issued notices to the petitioners herein, as well to the Sarpanch taking reco...
Radhesham Ganeshlal Dhoot Vs. Vishukumar Bansalilal Kalantri and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
Oral Judgment :- 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner/original accused under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayed that order passed by the Principal District Judge, Latur in Criminal M.A.No.21/2012 below Exhibit No.1 on 12.06.2012 be quashed and set aside and Criminal case nos. STCC 1091/2010, STCC 1468/2010, STCC 154/2011, STCC 592/2011 pending before 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC No.1574/2011 pending before 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC 153/2012 pending before 10th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC No.646/2012 pending before 8th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur be transferred and be tried before any one Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur. 4. Fac...
Radhesham Ganeshlal Dhoot Vs. Vishukumar Bansalilal Kalantri and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
Oral Judgment :- 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner/original accused under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayed that order passed by the Principal District Judge, Latur in Criminal M.A.No.21/2012 below Exhibit No.1 on 12.06.2012 be quashed and set aside and Criminal case nos. STCC 1091/2010, STCC 1468/2010, STCC 154/2011, STCC 592/2011 pending before 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC No.1574/2011 pending before 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC 153/2012 pending before 10th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC No.646/2012 pending before 8th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur be transferred and be tried before any one Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur. 4. Fac...
Dr. Prakash S/O Shamrao Chaudhari Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is a medical practitioner. The clinic of the petitioner possess the certificate of registration under the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act. The same is for the purpose of Genetic Counselling Centre, Ultrasound Clinic, etc. as is detailed in the certificate of registration. 3. The respondent authorities on 18.06.2011 visited the said centre of the petitioner and found certain discrepancies. On the very same day, the respondent authorities cancelled the registration of the sonography centre of the petitioner. After cancelling the same, the respondent authorities have asked for the reply from the petitioner within seven days. The same is assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the registration of the sonography centre of the ...
Govind S/O. Vithalrao Joshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original complainant) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he prays that the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu (District : Parbhani), below Exhibits 94 and 104, in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, be quashed and set aside and both the said applications Exhibits 94 and 104, filed in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, be allowed. 4. The petitioner is running a shop under the name and style as Mirag Agro Services and Consultants, Sailu, of which he is a proprietor. Respondent no.2 is the Director of one Company called as Biovision Corporation, Pune, which is engaged in the activities of manufacturing organic fertilizers. There were commercial transactions between them a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »