Mumbai Aurangabad Court March 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.
Laxman Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.81 Of 2010 dated 21st December, 2010 by which the learned court below convicted the Appellant (Ori.Accused) for the offence punishment U/Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three [3] years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- [Rs.Five Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine amount, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [1] year. The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishment U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rs.Ten Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine amount, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three [3] years. The Appellant was further held guilty of committing an offence punishable U/Secti...
Dattu Vitthal Shimpi Vs. Raghunath Narayan Wani (Since Deceased) Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Oral Order: 1. The application is filed against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Jalgaon. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant challenging the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 352 of 1998, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon. The suit filed by the present respondent was for eviction under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?). The said suit was decided in favour of the respondent. Both sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of one room having size of 6 X 12 feet, which is a part of house property bearing C.T.S. No. 1413 from Maruti Peth, Jalgaon Municipal Council. It is contended that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from previous owner on 20.05.1981 and notice of attornment was given to defendant. 3. It is the ca...
Shrirampur Education Society Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 19-09-2001, the petitioner was protected. By order dated 29-11-2001, the petition was admitted and the interim relief granted to the petitioner was continued. 2. I have heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Mobin Shaikh for the petitioner and Shri K.B. Choudhari, for the Provident Fund Authorities respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 3. By an order dated 19-11-1997, the respondent No. 1/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (R.P.F.C.), Mumbai, made the petitioner/ society amenable to the jurisdiction of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (E.P.F.M.P. Act) 1952. By the said order the Provident Fund Act was made applicable to the petitioner/society and all its establishments/ Branches/ Departments with effect from 01-08-1982. It is thereafter that the recovery proceedings in accordance with the Act were initiated against the petitioner/society. I do not find it necessary to go into the entire facts set out in this ...
Anmolsingh Swarnsingh Jabbal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Being dissatisfied and feeling aggrieved by the recording of find of guilt, and consequently imposing punishment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, dated 15.4.2011 in Sessions Trial No.10 of 2010, the appellant has presented the appeal questioning his sentence, on account of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The factual matrix, giving rise to the present appeal, can succinctly be narrated as under :- PandurangKharate (PW-1), an agriculturist and resident of Kawatha, was returning to his house along with one Paraji on 29.7.2009 at 7.30 a.m. from their field. That time, they saw dead body of a girl by the side of field of one Raosaheb Pande. The dead body was lying in shrubs. They noticed that the deceased was having Jeans pant and T-shirt on her person. They informed the said fact to police patil Tukaram Kharate. Police Patil Tukaram Kharate (PW-2), on receipt of the information from Pandurang K...
Peeraji and Others Vs. Hariba and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Judgment : 1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 191/1984 which was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Latur. The appeal of the present respondent against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 157/1979 decided by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur is decided in favour of the respondent. The relief of specific performance of contract and permanent injunction are granted to the respondent by the First Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2. The respondent (plaintiff) had filed suit in respect of agricultural land bearing Gat (Block) No. 141 and 153 situated at Ankoli, Tahsil and District Latur. The area of first land is 5 Acres 35 Gunta and area of second land is 4 Acres 10 Gunta. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant - Peeraji was in need of money and so, he agreed to sell the suit property to plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 12,500/-. It is contended that on 25.12.1978 the agreement was written and...
Shamkalabai and Others Vs. Bhikamsing
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
JUDGMENT: 1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.196 of 1985 which was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge Beed. The appeal filed by the respondent “ defendant against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 1980 is allowed by the First Appellate Court. The trial Court had given judgment and decree of permanent injunction in favour of appellant/ plaintiff and that decision is set aside by the First Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2) The plaintiff is wife of brother of the defendant. The suit was filed in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy. No.114 situated at Beed and admeasuring 7 acres. It is also in respect of one half share in the water of well situated in Survey No.114. 3) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was purchased by her from the funds given by her father, under registered sale dated 19-1-1975. It is her case that from the date of purchase she has been in po...
Damodar Prasad Maheshwari (Somani) and Another Vs. Sagar Onkardas Nyat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State finally. 2. In this matter, the respondent No.1- complainant filed R.C.C. No.239/2012 against the present applicants (original accused Nos.1 and 3). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon did not issue process against accused No.2 Mrs. Trivenidevi observing that her contribution behind this offence is not well founded and she could not be arrayed as accused. Against the order of issue of process against applicants, the present application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants is relying on the case of National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 488. He submits that, perusal of the complaint shows that the accused persons were not residents of the local jurisdiction of the Court and in view of the amendment to Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), it was incumbent ...
Baburao and Others Vs. Tukaram and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
1. This Appeal from Order is by the appellants/ original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs). Regular Civil Suit No.100/2000 filed by the plaintiffs against respondents (original defendants) was for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "subsequent purchasers") purchased part of suit property and thus, they were added in the suit as defendants No.4 and 5. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on 2.9.2013. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.298/2013 before the District Judge, Ahmednagar. In the appeal, plaintiffs filed application for injunction pending the appeal. The application came to be rejected on 18.11.2013 and hence, the present Appeal from Impugned Order against rejection of Temporary Injunction application. 2. Original plaintiff No.1 Baburao Namdeo Nalwade expired during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives are on record. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 a...
Manoj Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
1. The applicant is the husband of the non-applicant no.2 herein. He is facing prosecution vide Regular Criminal Case No. 154 of 2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sakri [District : Dhule]. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the non-applicant no. 2 herein. The learned Magistrate has, by an order dated 22-8-2011, issued process against the applicant, requiring him to answer to the charge of offences punishable under Sections 193 of the IPC, 465 of the IPC and 471 of the IPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed this Application invoking the inherent powers of the court and praying that the proceedings of the said Criminal Case be quashed. 2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the applicant shall hereinafter be referred as "the accused", and the non-applicant no.2 as "the complainant". 3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the accused. I have heard Mr. R.N. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate for the complainant. I...
Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Govind and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard counsel for petitioner- complainant. Notice to respondent No.2 only at admission stage. The Writ Petition is heard finally at admission stage. In the trial Court, in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, application Exhibit 18 was filed for discharge, which came to be rejected. Subsequently, the accused filed yet another application Exhibit 47 for discharge, in which detailed orders were passed, discarding the grounds raised by the accused for discharge. Another application filed by the accused for taking action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) also came to be rejected. Judgment was in favour of the complainant as far as regards the grounds which had been raised by the accused in the trial Court. However, in the revision, the revisional Court expanded the jurisdiction of revision so as to consider additional point and while considering those points, the revisional Court has dismissed the com...