Mumbai Aurangabad Court September 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.
Babu S/O Ramjan Laluwale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. The marriage between deceased Yusuf Ramjan Laluwale and respondent No.2 herein viz. Malanbee took place on 14.5.1999. Applicant No.1 Babu is brother-in-law of respondent No.2 Malanbee, whereas applicant No.2 Ramjan is father-in-law, applicant No.3 Shabanabano is wife of applicant No.1 Babu, and applicant No.4 Fatobee is mother-in-law of said respondent No.2-Malanbee. It is submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 viz. Yusuf expired during pendency of criminal appeal No. 17 of 2008. 5. A complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 Malanbee with Hingoli Rural police station alleging therein the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the present applicants and her deceased husband. Accordingly, offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P...
Angad S/O. Nagnathrao Kathale Vs. Kishan S/O. Baburao Suryawanshi
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.T. Veer for the applicant, and Adv. Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad for the respondent. 2. For the reasons stated in the present Application, leave granted and the present Application be treated and numbered as Criminal Appeal. 3. Admit. 4. Adv. Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad waives service of notice after admission. 5. By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order below Exhibit 1 in STCC No. 241/2008, dated 30th June 2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Renapur (District : Latur), thereby dismissing the complaint of the appellant (original complainant), in default, and thereby consequently discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 6. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 7. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant (original complainant) is a consumer...
Sahebrao S/O. Dattu Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. The revision is admitted. By consent, notice after admission of revision was made returnable forthwith and both the sides were heard for final disposal of the matter. 2. The proceeding is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 153/2004, which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. In the Trial Court, the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. All the accused, including respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for offences punishable under section 304-B, 498-A and 34 of I.P.C. All the accused are acquitted of these offences. Original complainant has filed the present proceedings. Heard the advocate for complainant, advocate for the accused and the learned A.P.P. The learned A.P.P. supported the original complainant. The original record is perused by this Court. 3. The deceased Suwarna was niece of the complainant. The father of the deceased was a real brother of the complainant and he had died 3...
Babu S/O Ramjan Laluwale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. The marriage between deceased Yusuf Ramjan Laluwale and respondent No.2 herein viz. Malanbee took place on 14.5.1999. Applicant No.1 Babu is brother-in-law of respondent No.2 Malanbee, whereas applicant No.2 Ramjan is father-in-law, applicant No.3 Shabanabano is wife of applicant No.1 Babu, and applicant No.4 Fatobee is mother-in-law of said respondent No.2-Malanbee. It is submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 viz. Yusuf expired during pendency of criminal appeal No. 17 of 2008. 5. A complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 Malanbee with Hingoli Rural police station alleging therein the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the present applicants and her deceased husband. Accordingly, offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P...
Sahebrao S/O. Dattu Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. The revision is admitted. By consent, notice after admission of revision was made returnable forthwith and both the sides were heard for final disposal of the matter. 2. The proceeding is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 153/2004, which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. In the Trial Court, the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. All the accused, including respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for offences punishable under section 304-B, 498-A and 34 of I.P.C. All the accused are acquitted of these offences. Original complainant has filed the present proceedings. Heard the advocate for complainant, advocate for the accused and the learned A.P.P. The learned A.P.P. supported the original complainant. The original record is perused by this Court. 3. The deceased Suwarna was niece of the complainant. The father of the deceased was a real brother of the complainant and he had died 3...
Angad S/O. Nagnathrao Kathale Vs. Kishan S/O. Baburao Suryawanshi
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.T. Veer for the applicant, and Adv. Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad for the respondent. 2. For the reasons stated in the present Application, leave granted and the present Application be treated and numbered as Criminal Appeal. 3. Admit. 4. Adv. Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad waives service of notice after admission. 5. By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order below Exhibit 1 in STCC No. 241/2008, dated 30th June 2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Renapur (District : Latur), thereby dismissing the complaint of the appellant (original complainant), in default, and thereby consequently discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 6. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 7. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant (original complainant) is a consumer...
Aparna D/O Krishnakumar thete @ Aparna W/O Mukesh Sedamkar and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1] Heard the learned Advocates at length. 2] Above two (2) Writ Petitions and Civil Application in the decided Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2011 were heard together from time to time. Those were reserved for orders. 3] Thereafter, learned Advocate for the petitioner made a motion for taking cases on board, as the petitioner desired to place on record certain documents in Writ Petition No. 6422 of 2012. Therefore, the Writ Petitions were taken on board. The petitioner has sought leave to amend the petition. Leave was granted. Petitioner has added certain averments and certain documents. On the date of hearing, petitioner has also filed Civil Application No. 9666 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 6422 of 2012, by which the petitioner has prayed for taking in safe custody certain registers which constitutes documentary evidence of petitioner’s grievance against the Respondent No. 4. This application was heard with the Writ Petitions. 4] Two (2) Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are hear...
Pralhad S/O. Babanrao Thombre Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1.Heard Adv. Mr. A.D. Aghav for the petitioner, and learned APP Mr. N.R. Shaikh for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 13-7-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Basmath, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 141/2012, and the judgment and order dated 23-8-2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and District Judge-1, Basmathnagar, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 16/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the respondent be directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner, bearing No. MH-15/E-6626 i.e. Tavera Jeep. 4. The petitioner contends that he is doing business of vehicle sale, purchase and transport and he is having vehicle bearing No. MH. 15/E-6626 i.e. Tavera...
Shaikh Noor Shaikh Nanhu Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.S. Lomte for the petitioner, learned APP Mr. N.R. Shaikh for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. S.S. Rathi for respondent no.2. Nobody for respondent nos.3 to 5, though served. Learned Advocates for respondent no.6 absent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Advocates of parties, taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 3. Leave to amend the prayer clauses granted to the extent that instead of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jintur, it be shown as Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jintur. 4. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original accused no.4), under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed that the order dated 20th January 2012, passed below Exhibit 125 in Regular Criminal Case No. 65/2000, by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jintur, be quashed and set aside. 5.The respondent no.2, Jintur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jintur, has filed private complaint before l...
Phulchand S/O Uttamrao Andhare and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Both the Writ Petitions are based on similar facts and involve common question of law as such are decided together. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions were issued licences for running LoknatyaKala Kendras. The same were issued by the Additional Collector, Latur under Rule 92 of the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement Including Mela, Tamashas, 1960. The said licences of the petitioners are in force till 2015 as contended by the petitioners. 4. It appears that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners seeking explanation from them as to why their licences should not be cancelled. The said notices are received by the petitioners on 17.08.2012. On 21.08.2012, the petitioners sought time to file their say. On same day i.e. on 21.08.2012, respondent no. 3 Thasildar ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »