Mumbai Aurangabad Court October 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.
Mahila Vikas Mandal, Aurangabad and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 In this group of petitions, petitioners are questioning the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012. Petitioners, before the Court, are either private aided institutions operating primary schools or employees employed by such private schools. 3 The preamble of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 records that it is the primary responsibility of the State Government, under the Indian Constitution, to provide quality education to the children in the State. In order to make available facilities of education to the children, the State Government operates schools through the local self Government as well as by providing aid to the private managements. The Special Justice Department as well as Tribal Development Department of the State of Maharashtra operate Residential schools as well as Ashram Schools for imparting educatio...
Abasaheb S/O Balasaheb Varkhade and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.677 of 2012 is by original accused Nos.1 and 2. Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2013 is by original accused Nos.4 and 5. These Appeals are against their conviction imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide Judgment dated 22nd November 2012, passed in Sessions Case No.128 of 2010. Criminal Application No.963 of 2013 is filed by the State against original accused Nos.2 to 12 seeking leave under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr. P.C.") against acquittal of original accused Nos.2 to 11 of Sections mentioned. Charge was framed in the trial Court against accused Nos.1 to 6 under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."); against accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 under Section 201 read with 34 of I.P.C.; against accused Nos. 7 to 9 under Section 114 read with 302, read with 34 of I.P.C.; against accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 10 to 12 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The trial Court as per J...
Arjun Ratansing Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of both sides. 2. In nutshell, the case of petitioner is that, he had taken contract of collection of gum from Chalishgaon Forest area for the period 26.11.2008 to 30.6.2009. He had got a pass issued to transport the gum from Chalisgaon to village Pal in Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon and transported the gum. The forest officials at Pal seized the gum at Pal and sealed the same in two rooms of the house of petitioner. Petitioner claims, this act of the forest officials is illegal. 3. The petitioner has supported his claim referring to various documents filed on record. Respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed the claims made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner, on the basis of the contentions raised and documents, has submitted as follows:- (a) The petitioner was the highest bidder in auction for collection of gum from 26.11.2008 to 30.6.2009 from Chalisgaon fo...
Smt. Manisha Bhimraj Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Banjara Magasvargiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Talegaon Tanda, Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist Jalgaon, under its aegis, was running primary ashram school by the name Prabodhankar Thakare Prathmik Ashram Shala, Talegaon Tanda, TqChasligaon DistJalgaon. Petitioners, possessed of requisite qualifications, were appointed in their respective posts in said Ashram School, during the period from 1999 to 2004. Appointments of petitioners, in due course, were approved during 2004-2006. Their appointments are made permanent with effect from dates referred to in chart submitted by the petitioners at Exhibit-A. 3. Around 2009, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, on his visit, found certain irregularities and deficiencies in conducting the school and a report accordingly was submitted by him to the Director of VJNT, OBC, Social Welfare of Special Backward Class, Pune (Respondent No.2 ...
Rajiv Gandhi Sahakari and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, in R.T.C. No. 299/2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 409 of IPC, Section 467 of IPC, Section 471 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. It arises on a complaint made by the respondent no.2 herein. The respondent no.2, shall, hereinafter, be referred to as the complainant, for the sake of clarity and convenience. 3. After examining the complainant on oath, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar formed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and also one more Arun Bhalsing who was named as the accused no.4 in the complaint, with respect to offences punishable under Section 467 of IPC and Section 471 of IPC, read with Section 34 of IPC. The petiti...
Dattatraya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
K.U. Chandiwal, J. 1. Heard finally. On 3rd April, 2013, Rule was issued returnable on 17th June, 2013. 2. The petitioner has prayed to declare that he was illegally detained by respondent nos. 2 to 5 and to direct respondent no.1 to initiate departmental inquiry against respondent nos. 2 to 5 for such illegal detention. He has also urged for a Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus for grant of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. five lacs) for his illegal detention, from respondents. 3. On 1.11.2012, after hearing Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record, Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, was directed to conduct inquiry in the subject matter and to file affidavit, answering each paragraph of the petition. On 31st Jan., 2013, Division Bench noticed that inquiry has not been conducted by the Superintendent of Police but, he has secured a report from Sub Divisional Police Officer and filed an affidavit on that basis. Consequently, Special Inspector General of Polic...
Kasturibai Venkat Patil and Another Vs. Venkat Vishwambar Patil
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. RULE. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner, claiming to be the wife of the respondent, filed an application for maintenance as contemplated u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for herself and for her minor daughter - Gayatri. The learned Magistrate, after holding due inquiry in the matter, directed the respondent to pay maintenance @ Rs.800/- p.m. tothe petitioner and @ Rs.400/- p.m. to the said Gayatri. The respondent approached the Sessions Court by filing revision application challenging the order of maintenance, passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, District Nanded, who heard the revision application, allowed the same, partly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the order of maintenance so far as it related to the petitioner herein, but maintained the order directing the maintenance to be paid to the minor daughter Gayatri. The petitioner is aggrieved ...
Devendra S/O. Nilkanth Deshmukh Vs. the Ministry of Human Resource Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.V. Ghatge for the petitioner, learned ASGI Mr. Alok Sharma for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. H.D. Marathe for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. Petitioner, a student seeking admission to first year of Bachelor of Engineering course, has approached this Court with a grievance that he was not allotted any seat in second round on 16-7-2013 and he was also not permitted to participate in further rounds thereafter. It is not in dispute, that he belongs to O.B.C. category and in JEE-Main (AIEEE) conducted by respondent no.2 / Board, he scored 146.30 marks and his All India rank was accordingly 37797. Respondent no.3 / Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, was reporting centre for him. 4. First round of seat allotment was conducted on or about 10-7-2013 and second round list was published on 16-7-2013. Petitioner claims that he logged in on that day and found that no seat wa...
Sagar S/O. Mallikarjun Mehetre and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
1. The appeals are filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 19/2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, District Osmanabad. All the appellants are convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 395 of Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years. Each appellant is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for one year. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeals, can be stated as follows:- The original complainant - Usman Khan owns a jeep of Qualis company bearing AP-13/Q-7494 and at the relevant time, he was using this jeep as taxi. He is resident of Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) and he used to collect passengers from Railway Station of Hyderabad. 3. On 2.6.2011 after 12.00 noon, five persons came to stop of tax and they were searching for taxi as they wanted to go to Gulbarga, Karnataka State. They...
Malhar S/O Ganpat Bokephod and Others Vs. Shivaji S/O Vishwanath Pawal
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-17-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By consent of both the parties, matter is taken on board for final disposal at the stage of admission. 5. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners original defendants challenge the order dated 26th August, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti below Exhibit-42 appointing a Court Commissioner to measure land bearing Survey No. 220 from western side 7 acres of land. 6. Few facts are as under:- Respondent original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 387 of 2012 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti for injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing his possession in respect of the suit property i.e. 1 Hector 18 Are from Survey No. 220 as described in paragraph-1 of the plaint. In that suit, respondent preferred application below Exhibit-42 dated 25th April, 2013 for appointment of Court Commissioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »