Mumbai Aurangabad Court January 2014 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.
Ankush Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. S.J. Salunke, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 waives service. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.C. No. 328/2007, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Beed. The said case is in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent no.2 herein, a Cooperative Bank, is the complainant in the said case. The trial is in progress. The evidence of the complainant has been adduced. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") has been examined under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"]. After the petitioner was examined, he made an applicatio...
The Chalisgaon Municipal Council and Another Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 to 6 waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming a declaration that Section 49(7) and Section 127 of The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (For short, the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966) are ultraviresArticle 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 21A, 47 and 243(w) of the Constitution of India and therefore, are liable to be struck down. They also claim a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash and set aside the communications dated 23/02/2010 and 17/04/2010, directing petitioner No.1 to deposit 2/3rd amount of the compensation in respect of a proposed land acquisition. Prayer clause 'D' of the writ petition reads as under : œIssue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the State Government to forthwith release th...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Shriji Enterprises Erandol ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
1. Respondents (hereinafter referred as "Plaintiffs") have filed special Civil Suit No.80 of 2009 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. The suit has been brought against present Applicants (hereinafter referred as "Defendants") for recovery of possession of property leased and recovery of lease amount. The dispute which has arisen between the parties is, whether Plaintiffs who have styled themselves as "Shreeji Enterprises Erandol" and shown themselves as partners, is a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ("Partnership Act" in brief). 2. Prakash Bhatia and other three arrayed above, have filed the suit claiming that the property in dispute was leased out to Defendants Indian Oil Corporation by one Sarla Bahubali Gangwal. The Plaintiffs purchased the suit property from Sarla Bahubali Gangwal by registered sale deed, with right to the lease rent and as the rent was in arrears, the lease has been terminated and the possession has been claimed along with lease amount...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manage ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
1. Heard finally. Admit. Record and proceeding received, perused. 2. In M.A.C.P. No. 110 of 2008, the learned District Judge-1, Beed by order dated 31.8.2013 passed award for amount of Rs.4,86,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a., against the original respondent Nos. 1 and 2, same is questioned by the appellant (original respondent No.2). 3. The claim petition was under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards death of Babasaheb Wankhede (deceased). On 8.2.2008, the deceased with his friend Krishna had been to village Madalmohi, Tq. Georai, from Jalna. The deceased was plying motor cycle MH-21-K-6325. His friend was pillion rider. When they reached near Padalsinghi, on Madalmohi to Padalsingi road, at about 9.30 p.m. one tempo was coming from opposite direction with dazzling lights, and due to its impact, the deceased could not control his vehicle, dashed against a tree and he with pillion rider, suffered grievous injuries. They were taken to Hospital. The...
Ankush Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
1. The Revision Petitioner was objector in Misc. Application No.135 of 2007 filed by Respondent No.4-Sangeeta alias Nirmala widow of Ramrao Patil which she filed for Heirship Certificate (hereinafter Nirmala to be referred as œApplicant? and present Petitioner Akush as œNon-Applicant?). The other Non-Applicants in the Application were present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur before whom the Misc. Application was moved, rejected the application for Heirship Certificate. The Applicant Sangita carried the Appeal No.29 of 2011 and it came up before District Judge-1 Ahmedpur, who allowed the appeal and directed issuance of Heirship Certificate. Thus the Non-Applicant Ankush has now brought this Revision Petition. 3. To understand controversy, the facts in brief can be stated to be as under: (A). The Applicant Sangita filed the application claiming to be widow of deceased Ramrao Patil who died on 27th April, 2006. It was claimed that Ramrao Pa...
Suresh and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. All these criminal appeals are arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 08/06/2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2010. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2011 is filed by the accused (appellant herein) Suresh s/o Ghanshyam Chopade praying therein, to quash and set aside order of conviction for the offence punishable under section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal Nos. 654 of 2011 and 655 of 2011 are filed by the State thereby praying for enhancement of the sentence and for setting aside the order of acquittal of the accused and to hold that, the accused is guilty for the offence charged and he be punished accordingly. 3. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under: Complainant Shankarrao Salpe is an agriculturist by occupation. He is 40 years of age. He had 4 children. He has two daughters viz. Bhakti and Shraddha and son Vivek and deceased Shashikant was his second son. His house is situated at P...
R.J. Wanwadi and Another Vs. Nandini Tulshiram Salve and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Oral Judgment: [S.S. Shinde, J.] Criminal Contempt Petition No.1 Of 2012. Mr. R.V. Wanwadi, Joint Civil Judge,(Civil Judge,) and Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad submitted Reference U/Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/with Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994, specified in Chapter XIII of Criminal Manual, through the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad vide Conf. O.No./Judl.Cri./558/2012 dated 28th September, 2012, to the Registrar (Judicial ) of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. Said reference is registered as Criminal Contempt Petition No.1 Of 2012. 2. Mr. R.V. Wanwadi, Jt.C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. has decided Regular Trial Case No.182 Of 2007 (The State V/s. Tulshiram and Ors.) on 13th January, 2012 and, thereby, acquitted all the accused from the offences punishable U/Section/s 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused No.1 Tulshiram Namdeo Salve is the husband of ...
Vishnu Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhosale, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. U.N. Shete, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. I-94/2011, registered with Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad. The said case relates to offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC, 468 of the IPC, 471 of the IPC, 120(B) of the IPC, 406 of the IPC, 323 of the IPC, 506 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC. In the course of investigation, in all, twelve vehicles belonging to the petitioner came to be seized. The petitioner made an application before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad, praying for the return of the said vehicles to him. The application was made in view of the provisions of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For sho...
Kalika Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. Ashok Bansilal Bora
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S.V. Mundhe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondent waives service of notice for final hearing. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is a SahakariPatsanstha [Cooperative Society] (For short, "Society"). It is the complainant in STC No. 531/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmednagar. The respondent is the accused in the said case. After the evidence was adduced and the examination of the respondent under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"] was done, the respondent submitted an application (Exhibit 60) dated 25-1-2012, praying that, witness summons be issued to the Chairman of the petitioner - Society - to appear before the court as a witness along with certain documents mentioned in the said application. On this, the learned Magistrate ...
The Chief Officer, Latur Municipal Council Vs. Manoj Achyut Bhosle and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
1. Heard. 2. Admit. Record and proceeding received. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel. 3. The Municipal Council, Latur assails the award of compensation of Rs.1,99,433/- with interest @ 12% p.a. recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Latur, by order dated 3.11.2011. 4. The original claimant (respondent No.1) served, however, absent. 5. The claimant was serving with respondent No.2 as labour. Construction of shopping complex of Municipal Council, Latur was in progress at Gandhi Maidan, Latur under a agreement with respondent No.2, as a contractor. On 3.9.2001, he was watering slab and owing to fall from slab, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He was required to be admitted in Vivekanand Hospital, Latur. Offence vide Crime No. 39 of 2002 was registered. Respondent No.1 (claimant) asserted that he was getting Rs.100/- per day and at the time of accident, he was 20 years old. He became disable and unable to work in the same spirit, as he was d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »