Mumbai Aurangabad Court April 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.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector Vs. Rajaram Jaywant ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondents are accused facing prosecution under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the State, as application Exh.312, filed by the State in the Sessions Case No.44/2011 before Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar to recall P.W.14 Kisan Abaji Shelke was rejected by order dated 6.12.2013, The witness was examined by the prosecutor on 1.10.2013 and in the course of the evidence, the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the State. On 1.10.2013, the cross-examination was deferred due to grant of application Exh.281. On next date of 9.10.2013, for some of the accused the Court ordered No Cross and rest declined cross-examination. By another application filed by the accused, vide Exh.310, recalling of same witness was allowed by th...
Royal Power Turnkey Implements Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized Signat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
A.M. Badar, J. 1. Heard. Rule. With consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By the instant petition, the petitioner, which is a private limited Company, is praying for quashing and setting aside the tender notice No. 31/201314, published by the respondent No.1 “ Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai (For short, œthe MIDC?), and for declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in inviting fresh tenders for the work which was already tendered by it, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play. 3. Facts, necessary for deciding the instant petition can be summarized as under: In response to tender notice bearing No. 17/2013-14, issued by the respondent No.1 “ MIDC, the petitioner company which is A-Class Electrical contractor, has submitted its tender for providing, erecting and commissioning of 33/11kv sub station, 2 x 10 MVA Transformer and 6 outgoing feeder substation in SEZ of Shendra Five Star Industrial Area ...
Sanjay Babasaheb Deshmukh Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Police ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Application is filed under Section 407 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transfer of the Special Case. 2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was working as District Agriculture Officer at Nandurbar when chargesheet came to be filed on the basis of trap laid under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Special Case No.21 of 2013 is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Nandurbar. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant-Accused, in the course of his posting at Nandurbar, had carried out various raids and taken various actions against the dealers, distributors and shop owners. According to the learned counsel for Applicant, the Applicant has apprehension if the trial takes place at Nandurbar, such dealers, distributors and shop owners will influence the witnesses and the Applicant will not get ...
Dr. Suyog Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. This Revision Application has been filed by original Accused-Petitioner facing Sessions Case No.163 of 2009 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Petitioner is facing offence punishable under Section 376, 328, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The evidence of Respondent No.2 ( I have refrained to put her name, which is available in the original Petition) as PW3 was being recorded in the Sessions Case and in the course of cross-examination, a letter was put up to her. She declined that the same was in her handwriting. She was asked and she wrote out a passage to dictation of the Advocate for Petitioner-Accused and also put signatures in Marathi and English as she was asked. The Petitioner-Accused filed application Exhibit 26 and the Sessions Judge passed order that the disputed document Article A and the sample handwriting given by the prosecutrix Exhibit 24 and other admitted documents as mentioned in the order, be sent to the State Examiner of Docum...
Smita Suryakant Ashtekar @ Smita Deepak Kumbhare Vs. the State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment: (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) 1. Heard. Considering the nature of controversy raised by the petitioner, particularly challenge to the order of externment, we do not propose to permit intervention of applicant Narwade or getting him added as respondent no.2. Application for intervention dismissed. 2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard finally by consent. 3. The petitioner questions order of externment in externment proceeding No.5/2013 recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Division, Ahmednagar, dated 20th Jan., 2014, and 27th Jan., 2014, confirmed in appeal by order dated 10th March, 2014. 4. Before we advert and ponder upon the issues, the broad out-line of submissions from Mr. Gaware needs to be scanned. (a) The notice dt.14.10.2013 is vague, without particulars. (b) The witnesses whose affidavits are tendered are not summoned. (c) For the same set of offense, she was earlier externed for four months and she has been victimized by second notice dated 14.10.2013. ...
Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Puran Maharashtra Automobiles ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1. Heard the learning advocates for the respective sides at length, in both the petitions. 2. Rule, in both the Writ Petitions. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. WRIT PETITION NO.1455 OF 2013 4. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 19th January 2013, passed in Revision Petition No. 13 of 2012 by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. By the impugned judgment and order, the auction proceedings carried out by the petitioners have been set aside solely on the ground that 15% of the auction amount was not deposited by the purchaser. 5. The petitioner No. 1 is a Bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1960"). Petitioner No. 2 is the Special Recovery Officer of the said bank at its Gulmandi Branch. Respondent No. 1 is the defaulting borrower. Respondent No. 2 is the auction purchaser. Respondent No. 3 ...
Laxman S/O Shankar Bandgar (Died) Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Venkat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1. Heard, learned Advocates. 2. By order dated 20-04-2001, this Court admitted the matter. Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply and accompanying copy of the Panchanama of delivery of possession to the respondents in terms of the impugned order, interim relief was denied to the petitioner. However, the respondents were directed not to create any third party interests in the suit property and not to part with the possession of the suit property till the disposal of the petition. 3. The petitioner contends that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Laxman S/o Shankar Bandgar. They are owners and in possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 171/A admeasuring 10 Acres and 34 Gn. situated at Halgada, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. Narsu Khandu Bandgar is the original assese. He had two sons namely Shankar S/o Narsu and Rama S/o Narsu who are therefore real brothers. Shankar had one son namely Laxman and Rama had a son Venkat who are therefore cousin brothers. Petitione...
Bhanudas Yeshwant Nagawade Since Deceased Through Legal Representative ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1) The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 1987 which was pending in the District Court Ahmednagar. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.68 of 1976 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhed. Decree of partition and possession is given in favour of respondent No.1. Both the sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed by respondent No.1 in respect of seven agricultural lands and two house properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was the ancestral property of his predecessor “ Yeshwant Nagawade. It is contended that defendant No.2 Chandrabhaga is widow of Yeshwant. It is contended that Yeshwant left behind other heirs like a son by name Bhanudas (defendant No.1) and a daughter by name Prayagbai (defendant No.5). It is the case of the plaintiff that he is son of defendant No.1 and defendant...
Dnyandev Ramlal Patil Vs. Sanjeev Bhavlal Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
Per Court: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties at length. 2. The petitioner / original plaintiff, has filed RCS No.54 of 2006 on 27.4.2006, for seeking declaration and cancellation of will deeds dated 20.4.2001 and 16.11.2002. 3. It has been specifically contended in paragraph No.7 of the said suit plaint that the petitioner is in possession of the property, which is alleged to have been passed over to the respondents / defendants by virtue of the will deeds dated 20.4.2001 and 16.11.2002. 4. In the said paragraph No.7, the petitioner has expressed a serious apprehension about the threat to his possession. Nevertheless, the suit was restricted only to seeking declaration and cancellation of the will deeds dated 20.4.2001 and 16.11.2002. 5. The petitioner submits that since the respondents have forcibly dispossessed him on 20.6.2012, he preferred an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") on 20.3.2013. By the said a...
Kantilal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
1. This Criminal revision Application has been filed by applicant- original accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was convicted in R.C.C. No.127/1998 on 6.11.2008 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shindkheda and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for 1 month for offence punishable under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for short) and his Criminal Appeal no.132/2008 to Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule has been dismissed on 8.10.2010. 2. Facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under: Accused was running grocery shop œAnil Provisions? at Pashte, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule. On 18.1.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. Food Inspector R.I. Jethar (hereinafter referred to as complainant P.W.1) went to the shop of accused along with Panch Ashok Sonawane. Complainant disclosed his identity and intention to draw sample. In the shop there was an open ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »