Mumbai Aurangabad Court May 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.
Dr. Ravindra Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Health D ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules"). 2. The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against accused. 3. Case of the Petitioner is that he is running Durga Hospital in Amalner and has purchased sonography machine. According to him, he never conducted any sex determination tests and he maintains regular records. He was...
Balaji and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in these writ petitions, the learned Additional Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for other respondents, jointly submit that, since the points/issues raised in all these petitions are similar, all these petitions can be heard together and disposed of by common judgment and order. Learned counsel for the petitioners in respective petitions submit that, writ petition No. 7106 of 2013 and writ petition No. 7660 of 2013 should be considered as lead petitions and the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners in those writ petitions would be adopted by other respective counsel appearing in respective petitions. In the light of above, this Court has proceeded to hear all these petitions together, and same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. As already observed herein before, all petitions raises...
Zaheda and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules"). 2. The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against Accused. 3. The case of Petitioner is that Mundadatai Charitable Trust runs Faijan Multi Speciality Hospital, Kaij, Dist-Beed and Petitioner is President of the Trust. Under necessary certificate and permission from Appropriate...
Dr. Dattatraya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules"). 2. The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against accused. 3. The Petitioner claims that he is running his hospital at Rahata. On 16th July, 2007 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Rahata-Respondent No.2 along with other Officers visited his hospital and carried out inspe...
Savitribai Narsayya Guddapa and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. These petitions are filed with following prayers, - œB) By writ, order or directions the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2009 issued by the Department of Finance kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of denying the benefits of revised pension provisions of M.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1982 to the petitioner and similarly situated employees retired in between 1.1.2006 to 26.2.2009 in respect of 20 years minimum qualifying service and formula of 50% pay on average 10 months pay or 50% last months pay which is beneficent to the retired employees. C) By writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the impugned order of fixation of pension of the petitioner dated 3.3.2010 issued by the respondent No. 3 Zilla Parishad on the basis of G.R. Dated 30.10.2009. D) By writ, order or directions the respondent No.1 to 4 be directed to apply revised provisions of pen...
Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal Vs. Jugalkishor Chhaganlal Tapadia
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. Heard Shri P.M.Shah, learned Sr. Advocate i/b Shri S.V.Adwant, Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.F.Totala, learned Advocate for the respondent, at length. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.4.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad in MARJI No. 103 of 2014. 3. The appellant formed a partnership firm with the respondent on 7.3.2007 under the Partnership Act, 1936. 4. Contentions of Shri Shah, learned Sr. Advocate can be summarised as follows:- (A) The partnership deed gives the partnership firm the name and title of M/s Kasliwal Empire. (B) The partnership deed is signed at Aurangabad. (C) Addresses of both the partners are at Aurangabad. (D) Object of the partnership deed is to construct and develop housing projects at village Satara, district Aurangabad. (E) Registered office of the firm is at Aurangabad. (F) Clause 16(e) prohibits withdrawal of any amount by any partner for his own profit, benefit or use or otherwise except rem...
Shobha Dipak Behde Vs. Umakant Reva Fegade and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2. The matter was heard and Mr. Girase learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1,3,6 to 8 and 10 submitted that he would furnish written notes of arguments along with authorities and a brief synopsis with index. The matter was initially reserved for judgment on 26-02-2014. On 04-04-2014, Mr. Girase sought time for aforesaid purpose. On 23-04-2014, parties were heard again for quite some time in the matter. Then as well, Mr. Girase sought time for the purpose referred to hereinbefore. The matter as such was reserved for judgment. Subsequently, Mr. Girase submitted written notes of arguments on 28-04-2014. 3. Petitioner questions propriety, legality and validity of order dated 30th April, 2012 passed in Disqualification Petition No. 26 of 2011 by the District Collector, Jalgaon and prays to quash and set aside said order under a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate wr...
Vijay Sudhakar Patil Vs. Asha Vijay Patil
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with consent of both the sides. Perused record. 2. The present petitioner has filed these proceedings under Section 407 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code requesting for transfer of Misc. Criminal Case No. 158 of 2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No. 3) Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana to Jamner, District Jalgaon. 3. The petitioner claims that the respondent is wife of the petitioner. Both are residents of Neri Digar, Taluka Jamner District Jalgaon and had resided there as a couple. There has been matrimonial discord and parties are now living separate. The respondent prosecuted the petitioner for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of FIR registered at Jamner. The petitioner filed a petition under section 9 and 13(B) (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of Marriage and the same is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. According to the pe...
Dilipkumar Bherumal Kucheriya Vs. Subhashchandra Nemichand Kucheriya a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2014
1) The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 182/2001, which was pending in the Court of Principal District Judge, Dhule. The appeal filed by present appellant against judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No. 69/1995 is dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Decree is given in favour of present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 of possession. Both the sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for relief of possession of house property bearing C.T.S. No. 1252 situated at Dhule. It is contended that one Khivraj was predecessor of plaintiffs. It is contended that defendants were in relation with Khivraj, but they were from different branch of Hindu family. 3) It is the case of plaintiffs that Khivraj was owner of the suit property and in the year 1928-29 he had made construction of the suit house. It is contended that as Khivraj had good relations with Bherumal and Samirmal, the predecessors of defendant/present appellant, he had given th...
Quazi Syed SalahuddIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard petitioner in person, learned A.P.P. for State and Mr. C.V. Thombre, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 3. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 18.12.2013 in Criminal revision No.262/2012 reversing the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, passed in S.C.C. No.1093/2007. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class had passed orders below Exh.164 in S.C.C. No.1093/2007 that in spite of change of Magistrate, in proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it was not necessary to have de novo trial. However, the Sessions Judge reversed the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and directed de novo trial. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The petitioner(party-in-person) has taken me through the evidence which was recorded in S.C.C. No.1093/2007. The evidence of the complainan...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »