Mumbai Aurangabad Court August 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.
Kalidas Namdeo Saruk and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] Petitioners before this court claim to be project affected persons and therefore, seek order to quash communication sent to them rejecting the demand to issue certificate regarding that status. 3] Respective counsel for the petitioners state that the certificate is rejected only on the ground that the norms prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010, are not fulfilled. According to them, the employment is to be provided as a part of scheme which was in force when land was acquired. Thus, right to employment crystallized on the date on which land was acquired is relevant and subsequent change in the scheme thereafter is, therefore, not relevant. They rely upon judgment dated 18th October, 2010 in W.P. No. 6921 of 2010 to substantiate their contention. 4] Learned AGP, for the respondents states that Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010, has been issued to regulate the grant...
Anandi Roy S/O Dilipkumar Roy Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Pub ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. The petitioner had lodged a report with Osmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code by unknown persons. It was reported that, theft in respect of the gold ornaments and cash belonging to the first informant and his wife, totally valued at Rs.89,300/- [Rupees Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred only] had been committed by some unknown offenders. The investigation commenced and three (3) persons came to be prosecuted in respect of the said offences. The trial held by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad resulted in the acquittal of all the accused persons. In the course of investigation, the stolen property was, allegedly, recovered by the investigating agency and this property was produced before the Court during trial. At the conclusion of the trial, th...
Ramkisan Shamrao Musale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2013
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. Petitioners assail, in this group of writ petitions, propriety, legality and validity of communications / letters dated 21.02.2013 and 28.06.2013 issued by respondents No.3 and 4, respectively communicating their revised pay fixation. Petitioners pay fixation has been done taking into account the date of their appointments and accordingly giving them benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (herein after CAS for brevity). By communication dated 21.02.2013 it was informed that CAS benefits given are not according to the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 whereunder the benefits would be available from the date of acquiring requisite qualifications and as such their pay fixation needs revision. It is further communicated that accordingly their pay be fixed and revised pay fixation be recorded in their service books and the same be sent for certification. 3. Indisputable position emerging in thi...
Dr. Mahesh Bapurao Swami and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2013
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. Petitioners assail, in this group of writ petitions, propriety, legality and validity of communications / letters dated 14.02.2013, 06.06.2013 and 26.06.2013 [dated 25.02.2013 Exhibit-G1 in Writ Petition No.5272/2013, dated 21.02.2013 and 26.02.2013 Exhibit-F2 and Exhibit-F1 in Writ Petition No.5810/2013], Exhibit-G1, Exhibit-G2 and Exhibit-I respectively to rest of the the writ petitions, issued by respondents No.3 and 6 respectively, communicating that pay fixation of the lecturers under the list appended to the same, has been done taking into account the dates of their appointment and accordingly giving them benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (herein after CAS for brevity). The CAS benefits given are not according to the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 whereunder the benefits would be available from the date of acquiring requisite qualifications and as such their pay fixation needs r...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shrikant Bandu Bhojne
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. By consent, admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith. By consent, calling for Record and Proceedings dispensed with. 2. The respondent is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.116/2010 pending before the Sessions Court, at Parbhani. In that case, the First Information Report came to be lodged on the allegations that the respondent herein and one Suresh Shelke had committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 366 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Investigating Agency filed charge sheet only against the respondent alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code and 366 of Indian Penal Code by the respondent. The charge of offences punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code and 366 of Indian Penal Code was framed on 20.4.2011 and the case was kept for recording of evidence. After the evidence of the victim the first...
Bhujang S/O. Laxman Nimawad Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 17 of 2012, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, District Nanded. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under sections 376 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :- The deceased was aunt on paternal side of complainant - Dattatraya. She was aged about 25 years. The incident took place on 17.2.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. The complainant and his brother Ramdas were at home. They heard the shouts of the deceased, which came from the side of the field of the deceased. The complainant and his brother rushed to the spot. They noticed that the accused was committing rape on the deceased. After seeing the complainant and his brother, the accused ran away. The deceased started weeping. The complainant and his brother somehow consoled her and took...
Vimal Powerloom Vs. Ravi Agency and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed to challenge the order of issue process made by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in S.C.C. No.4177/12. The challenge is made on the ground that the J.M.F.C. has not followed the procedure laid down in section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code (as amended in the year 2006). This Court was taken through copy of complaint which is filed by respondent for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court was taken through copy of verification of complainant and the order made by J.M.F.C. The order dated 9.10.2012 shows that on the basis of this verification and on the basis of the documents produced by the complainant, the J.M.F.C. made the order of issue process, summons. 3. It was submitted for the accused/petitioner that no inquiry or investigation as required in amended provision of section 202 of Cr.P.C. is made by the J.M.F.C. H...
Dinesh @ Pappu Dnyandeo Alkute Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 145 of 2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under section 304 (1) of Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years is given to the appellant and fine of Rs. 10,000/- is also imposed for this offence. He is also convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 201 of Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows:- The appellant is resident of Mahavir Nagar, Ahmednagar. The incident took place on the night between 30.3.2011 and 31.3.2011. There was live telecast of cricket match between India and Pakistan on T.V. Arrangement was made in the temple of Lord Ganesha situated at Civil HUDCO, Nagar for watching the match on big screen of T.V. The match was over at about 11.00 p.m. of 30.3.201...
Gajanan S/O. Subhashrao Suryawanshi Vs. Sharad Namdeo Pawar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. 1] Case No. CR 49/2011 under Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986; and under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as, the Disqualification Act and Disqualification Rules, respectively, for the sake of brevity) was filed by present appellant before the Collector, Nanded . 2] The Collector, Nanded conducted the trial of said application, and after hearing the parties, the Collector decided said application by judgment and order dated 18th February, 2013. Thereby he declared the councilors / the respondents therein as disqualified. 3] Said judgment was challenged in two separate writ petitions, namely, W.P. No. 1875 of 2012 and 1993 of 2012, by two different councilors in each petition. Both the writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court by judgment and order dated 7th May, 2012. 4] The appellant herein was respondent No.3...
Syed Kausar Shah S/O Mansoor Shah Vs. Syed Gous Ahmed Shah S/O Syed Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No. 23 of 2002 on 17th March, 2004. 2. The revision applicant herein, is the original defendant and the respondent No.1 herein, is the original plaintiff. (For sake of brevity, the parties will be referred to their original status as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant No.1'). The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that, the land Survey No.3 admeasuring 07 acres 14 guntha situated at Beed is service Inam land belonging to Dargah of Hazrat Mansoor Shah Wali, Beed. The plaintiff sought further declaration that, the plaintiff is 'Mutawali' of above wakf property and continues to be 'Mutawali', in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Atiyat), Beed on 23rd March, 1971. The plaintiff prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering and disturbing affairs pertaining to Dargah Mansoor Sha...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »