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.
Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the writ petition is admitted. 2. Rule. 3. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an allotment of the plot bearing No.T22 in the Chikalthana Industrial area which plot admeasures 4950 Square Meters. That allotment is made by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, a Government of Maharashtra undertaking, in favour of Respondent No.5. 5. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this writ petition, are that the 1st Respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The 4th Respondent is the Corporation established under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are officers of Respondent No.4 and incharge of promoting and encouraging Industrial Development. The 5th respondent is the allottee of the plot referred to above. The 6th Res...
Jaishri and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Ur ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. The Advocates for respondents waive service. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the then Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, now, the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 3. It is prayed that subsection (4) to Section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and proviso to subclause (d) of subsection (1) to Section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as,?the Municipal Councils Act? for short), are ultravires Articles 13(2), 14, 243Q and 368 of the Constitution of India. 4. A further prayer is to quash and set aside the notification dated 1st November, 2011, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, declari...
Ruksana and Others Vs. Azmat Khan and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
1. The appeal is admitted on 20.2.2007. 2. At the time of admission, no substantial question of law was formulated. It is now formulated, as under:- Whether deceased Shaikh Aleem expired during the course of employment suffered an accident? 3. Heard. Shaikh Aleem was truck driver on truck No. MH-26-7230 on monthly salary of Rs.5000/- plus Rs.50/- daily Bhatta. On 23.5.2005, Shaikh Aleem had been to Jintur for unloading cotton at Ayodhya Ginning factory on Jintur Yeldari road. At 11.00 p.m., he had parked the vehicle in the factory. Thereafter, in the process of unloading, he came out of the factory and while walking on the road side, he was knocked by unknown vehicle. Resultantly, he was injured and shifted to Government Hospital and later succumbed to the injuries on 24.5.2005. Post mortem was drawn. The cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injury with bomice infracraninal hemorrhage. 4. The claimants-appellants asserted that death occurred due to accidental inj...
Amol Vishwanath Bade Vs. Dattatraya Dinkar Ghule and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 on caveat. The revision is being disposed of after hearing these parties finally. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be Opponent No.4 in Regular Darkhast No.25/2009 pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi. According to the petitioner, he objected to the execution of the Darkhast on the ground that the decree passed under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was preliminary decree and so, the same was not executable unless final decree proceedings are drawn up before the trial Court. The executing Court heard the petitioner referring to him as "alleged Judgment Debtor No.4" and after hearing the decree holder also, has rejected the application of the present petitioner. 3. I have heard counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent No.1. According to learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 Dattatraya had brought suit for specific performance against r...
Mayuri Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welf ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner's caste claim has been invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, namely, the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Dhule, by its order dated 5th October, 2010. 3. Petitioner was claiming admission against a reserved seat and that is how, she approached this committee for validation of her caste certificate. The petitioner laid claim to Rajput Bhamta which is notified as a de-notified tribe (Vimukta Jati). The Petitioner produced before the said committee Caste Validity Certificates in relation to her cousins, but, the committee has opined that the Caste Validity Certificates are not in relation to the immediate relations but distant one and have discarded them. 4. The second ground on which the caste claim of the petitioner has been invalidated is because the petitioner could not state anything about the criminal record of the ancestors in the family...
Tushar @ Darshan Sham Patil Vs. Ku. Mukund @ Nakrand and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
1. Heard. 2. Admit. Heard finally. 3. The learned District Judge-1, Shahada on 14.10.2013, recorded order below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application No. 19 of 2012, rejecting the application, moved by Tushar-father of the child-Mukund for custody. 4. The matrimonial relations between Tushar and Smt. Savita and the couple getting the consent divorce in H.M.P. No. 55 of 2007 under Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned C.J.S.D. at Shahada is not in controversy. It is also not in controversy that by virtue of said consent terms, child-Mukund was to remain with Smt. Savita. 5. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for wife Smt. Savita has eloquently pointed out hardship faced by Savita and child. How, according to him, some of the terms in H.M.P. No. 55 of 2007 are against legal spirit, even eclipsing inherent rights of Mukund in such manner. 6. At this stage, this Court is not called upon to determine the genuineness/worth of the consent terms recorded in H.M.P. No. 55 of 2007. A s...
Maruti and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellants, who are the husband and wife are questioning the correctness of the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, Dist. Nanded dated 12th July, 2011 in Sessions Case No.2 Of 2010 whereby, the learned court below was pleased to record the guilt, for the offence punishable U/Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and sentenced both of them to suffer imprisonment for life and both of them were directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only) and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six month. The court below however, was pleased to acquit both the accused for the offence punishable U/Section 449 read with 34 of the I.P.Code. 2. As per the Charge, both the appellants on 2nd September, 2009 at about 8.00 a.m. at village Shelali, Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Sunita w/o Madhav Kendre by c...
Shripad Janardan Phadke Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
1. The applicants are the accused in S.T.C. No. 651/2005, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Navapur [District : Nandurbar]. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 153-A of the IPC and Section 295-A of the IPC. The applicants made separate applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) before the Magistrate, contending that the charge sheet had been filed beyond the period of limitation, and that, the cognizance of the alleged offences could not be taken in view of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"]. The said applications were rejected by the Magistrate by a common order dated 26-3-2013. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Court by filing the present Application, invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The applicants pray that the order passed by the Magistrate be quashed and set aside and the applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) be allowed. 2. I have heard Mr. G.S. Rane, the learned Counsel fo...
Nagnath Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Home Depa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
1. The petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No. 41/2010, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai. The respondent no.3 herein was also originally an accused in the said case. The respondent no.3, however, applied for tender of pardon to him, which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 3-8-2013. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, granting pardon to the respondent no.3, and has therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. The petitioner prays that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, granting pardon be quashed and set aside. 2. Rule was issued and considering the nature of challenge, was by consent, made returnable forthwith. 3. I have heard Mr. S.S. Thombre, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. I have also heard Mr. V.P. Kadam, the learned Additiona...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Though Itâandeuro;andtrade;s ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally. 2. The award of Rs.6,22,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. in M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 2011, recorded by the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Jalna dated 04.05.2013 is assailed by the Insurance Company. 3. On 8.5.2010, Raju Uttam Choudhary was driving his motorcycle with pillion rider. He was knocked by offending vehicle. F.I.R. vide Crime No. 63 of 2010, dated 8.5.2010 was registered at Badnapur police station against the unknown vehicle. 4. Police Inspector, Chandrakant, allegedly had instructions of Superintendent of Police, Jalna, carried further investigation and prosecuted owner of Maruti Zen car bearing registration MH-21-V-.541 (original respondent No.1 Dilip). Taking base of this, the learned Member relied upon evidence of said Chandrakant, for involvement of vehicle, had recorded award fixing joint and several liability on owner of said vehicle alongwith Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company confined his submissions to involv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »