Mumbai Aurangabad Court February 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.
Rukhmaji Dnyanoba Hakke Vs. Collector, Latur and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
P.C. The petitioner contested election from Ward No.2 and Ward No.3 of Gram Panchayat Mashnerwadi. The petitioner was declared elected as a member of Gram Panchayat from both wards i. e. Ward No.2 and Ward No.3 on 21.10.2012. The results of the said election were published in the official Gazette. The petitioner failed to tender his resignation from one seat within 7 days. Vide order dated 02nd November, 2012 the Collector declared both the seats vacant. 2. Shri Nimbalkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner eruditely contends that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before such an order was passed by the Collector. The learned counsel submits that when the consequences to the extent of unseating the elected candidate results, it was imperative for the authorities to issue notice and hear the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The petitioner's seat would not become vacant only on the ground that the resignation of one seat has not been submitted within s...
ParvIn Firoz Shaikh and Others Vs. Firoz SharfuddIn Shaikh and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1) Heard finally. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2) Petitioner No.1 Smt. Parvin was married to Respondent No.1 Firoz. She had applied to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad for maintenance and consequential benefits under the provisions of Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV Act). 3) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and directed the respondent and his parents not to cause domestic violence to the petitioners. The respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 Parvin and Rs.1,000/- per month to Petitioner No.2 Vasim and Petitioner No.3 Muskan, as maintenance. The respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month towards rental charges for accommodation. 4) In Criminal Appeal No.66/2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad allowed the appeal and set aside the order of maintenance, referred to above on the ground that there ha...
Kamlakar Narayan Bhamre Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule was issued on 17th January, 2001. The revision applicant questions conviction in Regular Criminal Case No.220 of 1993 for offence under Sections 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(j) and 2(ia)(m) under Section 7(v) read with Sections 23 and 28 punishable under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "Act") directing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, R.I. for one month, by order dated 11th June, 1998 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sakri. In Appeal, conviction was confirmed. 3. Complainant - Food Inspector had been to the shop of applicant wherein, he purchased 600 gm of salli-supari under receipt. Notice under Section 14(a) of Act was served upon the applicant. Three samples were kept in three plastic bags. 4. The sanction was asked from Jt. Commissioner in terms of Rule 20 of the Act, however, it was accorded by in-charge Officer, it is not permissible. There could no...
Ramesh S/O Shama Kumbhar and Another Vs. Sudhakar S/O Budha Kumbhar an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Mr. Sangeet, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the purpose of the present Writ Petitions, respondent Nos. 1 to 27 in W.P. No. 270 of 2013 and Respondent Nos. 1 to 23 in W.P. No. 422 of 2013 are not necessary parties. 2. Mr. Nagori, the learned counsel appears for contesting respondent No. 28 in W.P. No. 270 of 2013 and respondent No. 24 in W.P. No. 422 of 2013. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed Suit for simplicitor injunction. The present respondent Nos. 28 and 24 respectively have filed application purportedly under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as parties. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petitions are filed. 5. Mr. Sangeet, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs are the...
Pradeep Vs. Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon thereby issuing recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "Act of 1960) in favour of respondent No.2. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to pages 20 and 31 of the compilation of the writ petition and submitted that, it is written that 'notice not claimed'. It is submitted that, the procedure which is prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the provisions under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is submitted that, if notice is not claimed, further stages are provided to serve the notice. No any attempt is made by the respondent authority to ask respondent No.2 to take steps or a...
Sagar Shantaram Patil Vs. the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon. T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocate for the parties. 2] The petition is ready for hearing as the affidavit in reply of the contesting respondent no.1 is already filed. 3] Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 3 and the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 at length. 4] The case proceeds in following admitted background: [a] The petitioner has passed the degree examination of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical). He has secured 59.91% marks in aggregate of four years performance. [b] The class at the degree level is determined on the basis of marks secured at B.E. Final examination and accordingly he is declared having passed in First Class. [c] The petitioner has secured 60% marks out of 100 in the subject Finite Element Analysis and Simulations. [d] The petitioner was awarded zero marks for question no.1(b) out of 10 marks allotted ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. On 4th October, 2000, learned 2nd Joint JMFC, Hingoli in RCC No.84/1994, acquitted Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for offence under Sections 435 and 429 r/w 34 of IPC. The State feels aggrieved by the same. 2. The appeal was admitted on 25th June, 2003 and action under Section 390 Cr.P.C. was directed. 3. Perusal of the judgment and record illustrate, there was long-drawn litigation between the accused and the complainant and his associates. Though PW No.1 was claiming to be an eyewitness, however, the learned Judge observed, his evidence to be an interested witness and doubtful. The learned Judge did not rely to the evidence of PW No.3 Sitaram. It was pointed out and not refuted that PW No.1, PW No.2 and PW No.3 were convicted in criminal case filed by the accused. Consequently, wrath and vengeance in the mind of the complainant saw its resultant in filing the prosecution referred above. Analysis of the evidence carried by the learned Judge was one of the possible view, w...
Annasaheb and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Appellants herein have been convicted u/s 302 and 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2012. They are convicted and sentenced u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. They are further convicted and sentenced u/s 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2] The case of prosecution is that the appellants along with Raosaheb Rangnath Dod, who is acquitted by the Sessions Judge of all charges, either individually or in furtherance of common intention subjected deceased Madhuri Annasaheb Dhokane, to cruelty and harassment for demanding remaining dowry amount of Rs.20,000/-...
Revu Wala Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
The present appellant is convicted by the Special Judge at Ambajogai in Special Case no. 6 of 2001 for the offences punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Act and further to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order and judgment dated 9.2.2004, the present Appeal is preferred. 2. The facts in brief are as under:. That appellant, during the relevant period, was Police Head Constable attached to Shirsala Police Station, Dist. Beed. One person named as Prabhu Chavan has died in unnatural circumstances after taking liquor. In that connection, one accidental death case no.3 of 2001 was registered with Shirsala Police Station. Thereafter, certain applications were fi...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Baburao Amrutrao More
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned APP for appellant - State and learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. The State questions acquittal of respondent in Special Case No.9 of 1998 for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act dated 31st August, 2001 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Ambajogai. 3. Leave was granted on 26th September, 2003. Appeal was admitted and Paper book was dispensed with. 4. The prosecution case was, Rohidas, uncle of complainant, had purchased 2 acres land from survey no.52 of village Chinchpur. He handed over copy of sale deed and urged the respondent to take mutation in revenue record and issue 7/12 extract. The accused, allegedly, demanded amount of Rs.1,000/-, it was negotiated and settled at Rs.500/-. Said Rohidas paid Rs.200/- to accused, the accused called Rohidas after 15-20 days. On 14th July, 1997, Rohidas inquired with accused whether, work was done. As stated earlier, amount of Rs.200/- was r...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »