Mumbai Aurangabad Court January 2013 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.
Kai. Vanjibaba GramIn Vikas Mandal Chalisgaon Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. The petitioner is running Teacher's Education College at Chalisgaon. The Petition was served with impugned communications dated 5th September, 2012 and 15th September, 2012. 3. Summary of contents of the letters under challenge is as follows : (a) Names of the petitioner's college was not included in the list of colleges to which admission would be given in the current academic year. (b) The petitioner has failed to secure fresh order of permission from NCTE (Western Region) Bhopal, to run the College. (c) By advertising for admission, petitioner has disobeyed the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. (d) Petitioner ought not admit the students for the academic year 2012-2013. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have opposed the petition. As regards objection to petitioner's running courses in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.5 it is stated in paragraph No.4, which reads as follows:- "4. I say that, it is...
Chagan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: The revision is admitted on 7th March, 2002. 2. The revision applicant is husband of deceased Smt.Punam @ Bebi. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, after recording evidence, on 21.5.1999 in Sessions Case No.129/1996, convicted revision applicant for offense under Section 498-A of IPC and directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month, and for the offense under Section 306 of IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three and half years i.e. three years and six months and fine of Rs.2000/-; in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge in Appeal No.10/1999 dismissed the appeal. 3. The scope in revision is limited; except when perversity or blatant illegality, or irregularity is pointed out, the revisional Court should not venture to read the evidence. However, in terms of Sectio...
Anand Vs. Shivbhushan and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 2. The learned Single Judge had admitted Writ Petition No.1898 of 2011, by order dated 7th April, 2011. The learned Single Judge did not grant interim relief. It is the submission of Appellant that result of refusal of stay is that the seat as a Councillor in Village Panchayat held by the Petitioner has to fall vacant, the election would be held and the Appellant will lose the opportunity as Councillor forever, though the Court may on merits eventually be satisfied about merit of the claim of the Appellant. 3. Considering the question that had fallen for consideration, we have noticed that it would be impossible to rule in either way without observing and commenting on merits of the question of law involved in the matter. Now since the Petitioner's Writ Petition is pending and is yet to be heard by the learned Single Judge, and if we rule on the point of law one can easily visualize that such pronouncement would resul...
Balbhim S/O Sukhdeo Limbkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 18.4.2012, passed by the Minister of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, in Revision No. VAM-1012/C.N. 177/CS-21 dated 18.4.2012. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made complaint against the respondent No.4. According to the complaint of the petitioner, the Tahsildar (Supply) initiated enquiry about the fair price shop of respondent No.4 and found serious illegalities and irregularities committed by respondent No.4. On 3.4.2008, respondent No.4 was given a show cause notice. It is the case of the petitioner that after hearing both the parties, District Supply Officer, Osmanabad by order dated 22.7.2008, cancelled the licence of the fair price shop of respondent No.4 as well as confiscated the deposit amount of Rs. 3000/-. The District Sup...
Sudhakar S/O Sidram Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Minist ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2012 passed by the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection in case No.VAM1009/F.N.530/C.S.21. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running a fair price shop and retail kerosene in Yemgarwadi since 1987. The retail kerosene licence of the petitioner was renewed by the respondent authorities from time to time till 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner paid renewal fees, his retail kerosene licence No.13/87has not been renewed after 1997 but, the petitioner was given kerosene quota for distribution till December, 2004. 4. The respondent authority directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,000/- towards deposit for retail kerosene security deposit vide Challan No.101915161. The petitioner deposited Rs.3000/- in the treasury office Tuljapur on 27th November, 2002. 5. It is th...
Mrs. Vaishali W/O Sunil Raichur Vs. Arun Shridhar Karadkhedkar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule was issued in Criminal Writ Petition No.127/2011 on 14th Oct., 2011. 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for respective parties, Rule, in other matters. Counsel for respective parties waive service. 3. Heard forthwith. 4. These six writ petitions question issuance of process under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in six different complaint petitions against the petitioner, initiated by respective respondents (members of the same family). Process was directed on 6.5.2010, 16.7.2009, 29.4.2011, 16.7.2009, 6.5.2011 and 14.7.2009 in respective matters. 5. No revision is preferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., though alternate remedy was available to the petitioner. In normal circumstances, on this count, the petitions would have been remitted for approaching appropriate Court, however, since the grounds in the petition indicate to consider whether there exists a primary liability of the petitioner in terms of Section 138 or 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act,...
Vilas Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
This appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special (Atro.) Case No.13 of 2010. Appellant is convicted for offence under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month. For offence under Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and directed to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month. For offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for six months. For offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo S.I. for ten days and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for one day. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTS :- 2. On 25th Janu...
Balasaheb Bansi Raut Vs. Savita Shrihari Khetre and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule was issued on 30th June, 2006. Stay to the prosecution to the extent of original accused no.7 (petitioner) was granted. Mr.Bora informs, prosecution against rest of the accused has turned into acquittal, however, he has no certified copy of order. Learned counsel for original complainant does not dispute this position. 3. Irrespective of such acquittal, perusal of F.I.R. of the victim demonstrates that sweeping allegations are made against the petitioner who is maternal father-in-law of the complainant. He resides independently at Nalwandi, Tq.Georai, away from the residence of her husband. 4. In the result, F.I.R. to the extent of applicant - Balasaheb is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute....
Vitthal Janardan Phadke Vs. Prabhakar Mohiniraj Wable and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1] Heard learned Advocates for the applicant and the respondent no.1 as also learned AGP for the respondent nos.2 to 4. 2] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 3] This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated 23.10.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 146/2012 in Writ Petition No.4914/2012 passed by Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble S/Shri Justices Naresh H. Patil and A.B. Chaudhari. 4] At present, Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh H. Patil is not sitting at Aurangabad. The matter could have waited till arrival of Justice Patil, however, the relief subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal and the civil application for review has a life only up to 31.3.2013. In that background, learned Advocate for the applicant urged for taking up the civil application for review by this Court, which even otherwise could have been taken in view of present standing orders. The matter is, therefore, taken up for hearing. 5...
Shankar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. The appeal is admitted on 23rd May, 2012. Since the appellant is in custody, priority is given to the appeal, pursuant to order of this Court dated 19th June, 2012. 2. The appellant impugns conviction recorded in Sessions Case No.14/2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, District Nanded, for an offence under Section 307 of IPC, directing to undergo R.I. for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, R.I. for three months by order dated 15th May, 2012. 3. The complainant - Bhagwan Maroti Pimpale resides at Balegaon, Tq.Umri while the accused is also resident of the same village. In the wee hours on 8.10.2010 at around 3.00 a.m., when the complainant Bhagwan was sleeping in court-yard with his wife PW No.2 -Smt. Satyabhama Pimpale, the accused sneakily barged and brutally assaulted the complainant with bamboo stick by 5-7 strokes. In fact, the presence of the accused/appellant was sensed owing to barking of the dogs, resultantly, PW No.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »