Mumbai Aurangabad Court March 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.
Santosh S/O Bhagwan Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Pr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
NareshH Patil, J. 1) Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 14-9-2012 passed by District Magistrate, Jalgaon, detaining the petitioner for one year in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the Act of 1981) is challenged. 2) The detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was possessing dangerous weapons and indulged in creating terror and fear amongst the people. The petitioner committed offenses as mentioned in Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has no fear of law. Due to the activities of the petitioner sense of insecurity prevailed in the minds of general public. The detaining authority further observed that the petitioner is a rancorous person of vindictive nature who prevents people from lodging complaint against him. There are various ...
Pratima Prabhakarrao Borikar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Chief Justice The petitioner, resident of Parbhani, an Ex-Councillor of the Parbhani Municipal Corporation and practicing Lawyer at District Court Parbhani, has challenged the nomination of respondent Nos.3 to 7 as Councillors of Parbhani Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012. 2. After general elections of the Parbhani Municipal Corporation, the meeting of the Councillors was held on 26 June 2012 to nominate 5 persons as Municipal Councillors of Parbhani Municipal Corporation. By Resolution dated 26 June 2012, the elected Councillors nominated respondent Nos.3 to 7 as Councillors all of them being office bearers of N.G.Os., rendering social services and having 5 years experience in the field. 3. Section 5(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 provides for nomination of Councillors. The Rules framed under the said Act and other Acts governing the nomination of members u...
Dilip Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule was issued on 4.12.2000 with interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d). 2. In R.C.C. No.81/1982, by judgment and order dated 22.7.1991, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir convicted the petitioner (original accused No.2) Dilip Ganpat Gaikwad for offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 45 days. For offence under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 30 days. Said judgment was questioned in Criminal Appeal No.33/1991. However, on 22.7.1991, the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. 3. The prosecution case, in short is, the Deputy Collector at Udgir had received report from Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Nasik, doubting certificate presented by original accused No.1 Basav...
Rajesh @ Prabhuraja Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The applicant was acquitted in Criminal Case No.401/2006 on 29.1.2009 for offence under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code. The State did not file any appeal. 3. Respondent No.2 approached the learned District Judge, canvassing the application to be under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, Respondent No.2 sought to condone delay of two years six months and 28 days, caused in preferring to file an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalna entertained Misc. Application No.72/2011 and by order dated 13.9.2012, condoned the delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicant questions legality of the same. 4. Another limb, apart from legality of condoning the delay, learned Counsel for the applicant has informed, special leave to file appeal or appeal under Section 378 or 372 proviso of Cr.P.C, could not have been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge. This is more so, the judgment be...
Mrs. Jayshree W/O Parmeshwar Patil Vs. Parmeshwar Alias Ghanshyam S/O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. This Misc. Civil Application seeks transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 343 of 2012 filed by the respondent husband against the applicant wife for annulling of marriage, pending before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon to the Family Court, Aurangabad. 3. The back ground facts leading to file this application as disclosed in the application are as under:- It is the case of the applicant that, the applicant married with the respondent on 26th April, 2012 as per Hindu rites and customs at Khajole, Taluka Pachora District Jalgaon. The father of the applicant has spent amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in marriage in addition to dowry of 110 gms. of gold int he form of ornaments. It is further case of the applicant that, the applicant returned to her maternal home on 30th April, 2012 and after attending the wedding returned to her matrimonial home on 5th May, 2012. It is cas...
Namdeo Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. 1. The Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 27th May, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.102 of 2010, convicting the Appellant Namdeo Bapurao Gund under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10th April, 2010 the husband of PW3 Parubai Gund, namely, Kisanrao had gone to field known as Saundadicha Mala in the morning hours at about 10.00 a.m. There were tamarind trees in the field and fruits from those trees were to be thrashed. One servant namely Katkar resident of Ruie village was engaged in that work. Radhabai, Vijubai, Reshmabai were also in the field for collecting fruits of tamarind trees. These ladies were resident of villa...
Bharat S/O Bahadur Ingale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (Naresh H. Patil, J.) 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3] The petitioner, who is a life convict, challenges the order dated 30.10.2012 of the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra. Under the impugned order passed by the State, the petitioner was placed in category 2(c) of the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, on 15.3.2010 under a resolution. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the facts of the case and the reasoning adopted by the trial Court, the petitioner has to be placed in category 1(c) of the old guidelines of the year 1992. The learned counsel places reliance on two judgments of Division Bench of this Court delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.1030/2011 on 13.2.2012 and another in Criminal Writ Petition No.630/2010 on 21.9.2010. The learned counsel submits tha...
Parmeshwar S/O. Tanhaji Garje Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Respondent received amount of Rs.7,384/of his provident fund which was credited in his account with Beed District Central Co-op. Bank of which, petitioner was Manager at the relevant time i.e. on 18th September, 1997. 3. The grievance of the respondent is, he did not avail said amount nor withdrawn it. However, debit note of Rs.7,250/- was made in the record of the bank and hence, the prosecution. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. directed investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Police report was negative. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. issued process for offence under Sections 418, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against petitioner - Parmeshwar and two others i.e. D.M.Dongre and R.B.Sanap. The matter was carried in Criminal Revision Application No.14 of 2010 and on 14th July, 2010, the Revision was dismissed. 5. Basically, the deposit was dated 18th September, 1997 and there is entry of debit of Rs. 7,250/- in the ac...
Bhagwat Namdeo Nirmal and Another Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Shriramp ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The application was filed by the present respondent Nos.3 to 5 under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act' for short). It was rejected. In a revision filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 before the Sub Divisional Officer, the Sub Divisional Officer remanded the matter back. After the remand, the Mamlatdar rejected the application under Section 5(2) of the said Act. The present respondent filed revision before the Sub Divisional Officer, the same is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the application filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 under Section 5(2) of the said Act suffers from basic requirements of Section 7 of the said Act. There is an absence of cause of action, the Mamlatdar has got jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 5(2) only within six months of...
Vijay Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Home Department a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner questions order of externment dated 10th March, 2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, externing him from Kopargaon, Sangamner, Shrirampur and Rahata in Ahmednagar district; Vaijapur in Aurangabad district and Yeola, Niphad and Sinnar in Nasik district, for a period of one year, confirmed by the Home Department on 11th June, 2012. 3. Smt.Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, candidly accepts that by efflux of time, as one year has lapsed, nothing remains. However, she asserts, the petitioner has good ground to challenge the externment order, which qualifies to be an excessive and warrants interference in writ jurisdiction. According to her, the nature of operation in criminal activities of the petitioner is confined to Kopargaon and action of externing the petitioner from other talukas, referred above, violates his constitutional rights. 4. A s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »