Mumbai Aurangabad Court February 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.
Balaji Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Department o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (R.M. Borde, J. ) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioner, who was serving as Assistant Teacher with respondent no. 5 “ management, is assailing decision by the management to hold an enquiry against him and consequential order of termination which came to be issued on 28.09.2011 during the pendency of petition. Petitioner is also seeking direction to respondent nos. 4 and 5 to prepare and finalise pension papers and submit the same to the office of respondent nos. 2 and 3 so as to facilitate petitioner to avail of pensionary benefits. Petitioner also seeks directions against respondent nos. 2 and 3 to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits on receipt of pension papers from respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is not controverted that petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher in the school operated by respondent no. 5 and was permitted to retire on ...
Arjun S/O Bhimaji Lakare (Kahar) (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
1. This revision application has been filed by the original defendants No.1 and 2. The respondent No.4 is original defendant No.4. The contesting respondent No.1 Trust is before the Court through managing trustees. The respondent No.1- Plaintiff brought Waqf Suit No.21/2007 before the Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal at Aurangabad, claiming recovery of possession from defendants No.1 to 3, on the basis that these defendants are encroachers on Waqf property and possession should be given to the plaintiffs. The suit has been decreed and thus, the present revision application. 2. Plaintiff is described as Hindustan Momin Banarasi Jaatiche Panch, Yeola i.e. Baherchi Masjid, through its trustees as mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiff claimed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Suit property is Survey No. 11-A of village Yeola, admeasuring 4 Hectors 02 R. The said property belongs to plaintiff Masjid and is meant for religious, pious and charitable purpose. The suit claims that the ...
Rajendra Rameshwardas Gindodiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The Petitioner is the owner of S.No.569/1 admeasuring 2 Hectares and 12 Ares situated at Dhule. The said land is the ancestral property of the Petitioner. 5. The petitioner contends that, first development plan for city of Dhule came into effect on 18.6.1958. Part of the land of the petitioner was shown to be reserved for a Garden and some part of the same land was shown to be reserved for a 100 wide ring road under the said development plan. Though the said plot was reserved for a garden as well as for a ring road in the year 1958, no garden as on date is developed on the said land inasmuch as no road is constructed through the land of the petitioner. The said ring road is constructed through the adjoining land of the petitioner. 6. It is further contended that the second development plan for the city of ...
Mandrawati Vs. Maruti and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
1. Heard counsel for both sides. The Revision Application has been admitted and finally heard with consent of learned counsel for both sides. 2. The Applicant is original Plaintiff. Respondents are legal heirs of original Defendant No.1 Maruti. Respondent No.1C is Legal Heir of Defendant No.1 and also original Defendant No.2. I will refer to the Applicant as Plaintiff and Respondent No.1C as Defendant. 3. The Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.151 of 2007 for partition against her brother Defendant Maruti and his son Defendant No.2 Datta. According to the Applicant-Plaintiff, Defendants prepared a compromise deed and compelled the Plaintiff for her signature on the compromise and the same was filed in the trial Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur at Exhibit 16 on 2nd January, 2008. She did not give free consent to the said compromise. The same was obtained by force. Defendants succeeded in getting decree passed by the trial Court on 7th February, 2008. The same is illegal a...
Datta Rao and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard the respective advocates. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition is filed by 3 petitioners who are agriculturists, under Article 226, 227, 300A, 31 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 for challenging an order dated 30.6.2011 passed by respondent No.2 / Land Acquisition Officer, Nanded. By the impugned order dated 30.6.2011, the application of the petitioners filed u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be rejected. 3. The submissions of the petitioners can be summarized as follows: a. The agricultural lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for the construction of Upper Paneganga Project (Canal). b. Compensation at the rate ranging between Rs.5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per hectre was granted. An award dated 2.3.1981 was passed granting compensation at the rate of Rs.5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per hectre by an award dated 2.3.1981. c. One agriculturist, Sambharao Tukaram Deshmukh, being aggrieved ...
SachIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
1) This writ petition is filed to challenge the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ardhapur in Misc. Criminal Application No.63 of 2013. The petitioner had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and he had requested the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to send the matter to police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (œthe Code") for registering crime and for making investigation. After hearing the counsel of the petitioner and after going through the documents, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class held that it would not be proper to direct investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Judicial Magistrate has kept the matter for recording verification and thus has indicated that he will take cognizance of the matter. The petitioner has a grievance that the matter is not sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. Both the sides are heard. 2) Before the Judicial Magistrat...
Dipchand Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant, who was found guilty of committing uxoricide by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner by judgment and order, dated 16.3.2011, in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2010 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, has approached this court, thereby challenging the correctness of the said judgment. 2. The factual matrix, as unfolded during the course of the prosecution case, can conveniently be stated as under:- Dipchand, the appellant and his wife Kalpanabai were having marital life for last 26 years. The couple is having two sons and one daughter. PW1 Rakesh is younger than PW3 Sachin and Pavitra is the daughter of the couple. The appellant is a retired army person. After retirement from the army, he was working as Watchman at Devas in Madhya Pradesh. It appears that amongst the eight brothers of the appellant, there took partition in respect of their ance...
Kumari Sweta Suresh Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra Department of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner towards Thakur-Scheduled Tribe (Entry No.44). 3. Shri Golegaonkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner “ Ku. Sweta d/o Suresh Thakur submits that the Petitioner was admitted to the B.G.P. Sahyadri Jr. College, Sangamner, when her claim was referred to Respondent No.2 Committee by the said College. By order dated 16.1.2009, which is impugned in this petition, her claim that she belonged to œThakur “ Scheduled Tribe?, was rejected. 4. The petitioner contends that on the basis of the marks secured in the MHT-CET 2006 examination, pursuant to the petitioner passing her XII standard examination held in March 2006, she secured admission in Respondent No.4 College,...
Shaikh Rafiq Abdul Gafoor Shaikh and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.26 of 2008 decided on 30th July, 2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants herein i.e. Original accused Nos.1 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of IPC and each accused has been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each. The accused / appellants No.1, 2 and 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to sufferRigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. However, accused / appellant NO.3 has been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case in nut shell is, as under: The alleged incident has occurred on ...
Shobhabai Vs. Kundlik and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule was issued in this Civil Revision Application on 8.8.2013. Contesting parties are heard finally. 2. The present revision application has been filed by original defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1600/2012. The petitioner - defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The 16th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad passed a brief order, which is impugned in this revision application, mentioning that it is settled principle that the plea of limitation is mixed question of law and fact and that the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act are not applicable to suit. The Civil Judge passed order that the aspect cannot be decided at preliminary stage without leading any evidence and rejected the application. Thus, the defendant has filed this revision application, pointi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »