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.
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. Taver...
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 petitioners grievance against the Respondent No. 4. This application was heard with the Writ Petitions. 4] Two (2) Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are heard and a...
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 ...
Uttamkumar S/O. Chandrakant Wagh and Another Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke with Adv. Mr. B.N. Patil for the applicants, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present application preferred by the applicant nos.1 and 2, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed that the judgment and order dated 4-8-2012, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Latur, in Criminal Revision No. 58/2012, thereby dismissing the revision, and the order dated 25-7-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.5, Latur, C.R. No. 3015/2012, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, in respect of cancellation of bail of the applicants, be quashed and set aside. 4. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present application is as follows : (a) An offence was registered bearing No. 3015/2012 under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Bombay Prevention ...
Raju S/O Dadarao Mhaslekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. Judgment and order dated 13.7.2011, passed by the learned Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.81/2010 find challenge in the present appeal. The appellant/ accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is presently undergoing life imprisonment. The appellant/ accused has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two years in addition to the life imprisonment imposed on him for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He has been further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to suffer S.I. for six months on the second count. 2. The appellant/ accused and the deceased Laxmibai were husband and wife who lived together at village Mhasla, Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna. The appellant/ accused was a stunt man, who performed daredevil acts (Maut K...
Avinash S/O Ramkrushna Lokhande Vs. Miyasaheb GramIn Bigarsheti Sahaka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner herein is the original accused in criminal case bearing No. S.T.C. 494 of 2009, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"), whereas the respondent is the original complainant therein. The factual matrix of the case, for deciding the instant writ petition, are as under:- 4. The respondent Patsanstha has contended that the petitioner had applied for loan for the purpose of business and accordingly the petitioner has executed necessary documents. It is further contended that for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner has issued a cheque No. 611005, dated 29.5.2009, for an amount of Rs.2,57,295/-. It is further contended that the said cheque was presented for encashment on 13.6.2009. However, the sa...
Raju S/O Dadarao Mhaslekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. Judgment and order dated 13.7.2011, passed by the learned Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.81/2010 find challenge in the present appeal. The appellant/ accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is presently undergoing life imprisonment. The appellant/ accused has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two years in addition to the life imprisonment imposed on him for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He has been further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to suffer S.I. for six months on the second count. 2. The appellant/ accused and the deceased Laxmibai were husband and wife who lived together at village Mhasla, Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna. The appellant/ accused was a stunt man, who performed daredevil acts (Maut K...
Avinash S/O Ramkrushna Lokhande Vs. Miyasaheb GramIn Bigarsheti Sahaka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner herein is the original accused in criminal case bearing No. S.T.C. 494 of 2009, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"), whereas the respondent is the original complainant therein. The factual matrix of the case, for deciding the instant writ petition, are as under:- 4. The respondent Patsanstha has contended that the petitioner had applied for loan for the purpose of business and accordingly the petitioner has executed necessary documents. It is further contended that for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner has issued a cheque No. 611005, dated 29.5.2009, for an amount of Rs.2,57,295/-. It is further contended that the said cheque was presented for encashment on 13.6.2009. However, the sa...
Taher Khan S/O Wahed Khan Vs. Sambhaji Khanduji Nagare (Deceased Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Oral Order: I have heard learned counsel for the parties present before the Court. 2. During pendency of this second appeal Respondent No.1 Sambhaji died. His legal representatives are brought on record as Respondent Nos.1A to 1G. 3. This second appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court in MARJI No.86 of 2011 below Exhibit-1. 4. Few relevant facts for consideration of this second appeal are listed herein below: (a) Deceased Respondent No.1 had filed Regular Civil Suit no.346 of 1995 on 19th April, 1995 in the Court of learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad. This suit was for recovery of possession of Agricultural Land bearing Gat No.291, corresponding Survey No.187 situated at village Satara, Taluka and District Aurangabad, admeasuring 4 Acres and 27 Gunthas. It is alleged by deceased Respondent Sambhaji and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the original plaintiffs that Land Gat No.187 was owned and possessed by Narayan Shivla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »