Mumbai Aurangabad Court September 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.
Sakharam Digambar Mahajan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Oral Order:- 1. Heard Mr. S.M.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the original complainant. He filed a complaint against 11 persons i.e. the respondent nos. 2 to 12 herein, alleging the commission of offences punishable under sections 177 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the allegations was that, the respondent no.1 had given false information to the Vice Chancellor of Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. The Magistrate, upon examining the petitioner as contemplated under section 200 of the Code, formed an opinion that there was a prima facie case for proceeding against the respondents and by his order dated 25.6.2002 directed issuance of process against respondent nos. 2 to 12 (the accused herein) in respect of the aforesaid offences. After the service of summons, some of the accused made an application for rejection of the complaint contending that the cognizance of the alleged offence could not have been taken witho...
Sayaji S/O Tukaram Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. In view of what transpired on the last date of hearing, Mr. G.K. Naik Thigale, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that there is no question of arriving at any settlement with the petitioner, as indicated by Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Under the circumstances, Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable, forthwith. By consent heard finally. 4. The petitioner is an accused in S.C.C. No. 1084/2008 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. The said case is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein. The trial is in progress. On 08.02.2013, when the case before the Magistrate was kept for recording of defence evidence, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit 68) contending therein that the cheque in question had not been issued by the petitioner, and that the handwriting and signature on ...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Janabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Oral Judgment : Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Admit. 3. Learned Counsel Shri S.S. Patil waives notices for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in First Appeal No. 2575/2012 and also waives notice Respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 2548/2012. By Consent of learned Counsel for the parties, first appeals are heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. Two first appeals are filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company challenging the judgments and awards dated 16-06-2010 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. Nos.89/2006 and 90/2006, whereby allowing the compensation for the death.FACTS OF THE CASE 5. The main defence taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company is that the vehicle involved in the accident is goods vehicle an Isher truck, and both the deceased were travelling as passengers in the said truck. They were neither owners of the goods nor the persons authrorised who can be covered under the policy. Therefore, ...
Sau. Kalpana W/O Santosh Jadhav Vs. Hanma @ Seema W/O Govindrao Jadhav ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the Domestic Violence Act) against 8 persons, including the respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 made an application before the learned Magistrate who is seized of the matter, praying that their names be deleted from the array of the respondents. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 06.06.2012, rejected the said application. While rejecting the application, the learned Magistrate made it clear that the observations made in the order were only tentative and were in the context of the prayer for deletion of names of the said respondents from the proceedings. The Magistrate made it clear that whether domestic violence had taken place, would be considered only after the trial. Against this order of the Magistrate, the respondents a...
Sardar Surinder Singh and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioners, who are the members of Sikh community, are challenging order dated 21.05.2012, issued by Respondent No.2 i.e. District Collector and Administrator, The Takhat Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Board, (Gurudwara Board), Nanded thereby reappointing Respondent No.4 as Superintendent of The Takhat Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Board, Nanded with effect from 22.05.2012. Petitioners also question pay fixation of Respondent No.4 at Rs.78,024/- per month instead of pay band of Rs.9300-34000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, as prescribed by the Gurudwara Board. The petitioners also requested for issuance of direction for recovery of excess amount paid to Respondent No.4. The petitioner no.1 was a Member and Secretary of Gurudwara Board from 1969 up to 1990 and he is at present Secretary to the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa, Diwan, Nanded) sinc...
Satish @ Sanjay Dagadu Padwal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 Rule. 3 By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4 By consent, heard finally. 5 The Petitioner had filed a complaint against Respondent No.2 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 406 of the IPC by him. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, Respondent No.2 challenged the said order by filing an application for revision in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, who heard the revision application, allowed it, set aside the order issuing process and directed the complaint to be dismissed, as contemplated under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 I have gone through the complaint, a copy of...
Mohammed Arshad Iqbal Abdul Rashid Vs. Divakar S/O Bhagwanrao Pawar an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. 2 By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3 The Petitioner is the Complainant in S.C.C. No.3630 of 2012, which was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad (Court No.1). Respondent No.1 is the sole accused in the said case. There are two other cases pending against Respondent No.1 herein, i.e. S.C.C. No.3699 of 2012 and S.C.C. No.3958 of 2012. All these three cases were pending in three difference Courts of Judicial Magistrates. All these cases are in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4 Respondent No.1 made an application before the learned Sessions Judge for directing all the said three cases to be tried by and before one and a single Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 4th March, 2013, passed an order withdrawing the cases S.C.C. No.3630 of 2012 and S.C.C. No.3699 of 2012 from the Courts where they were pending and transferring the same to...
Rajani Vishwas Patil Vs. the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. V.D.Sapkal, the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. D.N.Salvi the learned counsel for respondent no.1-CBI. None appears for the respondent no.2, when called out. 2. The applicant is the widow of one Shri V.G.Patil who was murdered on 21.09.2005, at Jalgaon. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one Mr. Panditrao Mahajan in that regard, a crime was registered at Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon and investigation commenced. The investigation was, thereafter, transferred to the State CID and two accused namely Raju Mali and Raju Chintaman Sonwane (respondent No.2 herein) were arrested by the CID. It appears that, the applicant was not satisfied with the investigation and therefore, approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking a direction for transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the respondent no.1 herein. The said petition was allowed and that is how the investigation came to be transfer...
Atul Sahebrao Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is the accused in RCC No.459/2010 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 herein and is in respect of an offence punishable u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After examining the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant for the sake of convenience and clarity), the Chief Judicial Magistrate formed an opinion that a prima facie case of an offence p/u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and hence, by his order dated 28.12.2010 directed issue of process requiring the petitioner to appear and answer to the charge of an offence p/u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision application was of the view that order issuing process was proper, legal and correct. Holdi...
Smt. Savitrabai Sureshchandra Khatod Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad against four persons alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 409 of IPC and Section 420 of IPC by them. In the complaint, the petitioner prayed that an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as the Code) be passed. The learned Magistrate, after considering the avernments in the complaint, came to the conclusion that it was not proper to direct investigation into the matter as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code but, it would be sufficient, if the complaint is proceeded further by examining the complainant on oath as contemplated under Section 200 of the Code. The petitioner was not happy with this view of the Magistrate and challenged the Magistrates order by approaching the Court of Sessions...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »