Mumbai Aurangabad Court August 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.
Vijaya Vs. Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By an order dated 05/09/2001, this petition was admitted. Rule was expedited. The appointment of respondent No.4 made by the Management pursuant to the termination of the petitioner on the post which she had previously occupied, was made subject to the result of this petition. 2. The submissions of Mr.S.R.Barlinge, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner are as under:- (a) The petitioner is educationally qualified to be appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' and the same is undisputed. (b) The first appointment order of the petitioner is dated 01/08/1991. (c) The said appointment order, in clause 2, indicates that she was appointed on probation for one academic year. (d) A second appointment order was issued to the petitioner, which is dated 15/06/1992. The same is indicated to be a continuing order of appointment. (e) By the second order, as well, she was appointed on probation by way of continuation with the earlier appointment order. However, probation ...
Ramesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By these petitions, the issues raised for the decision of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether this Court, in its writ and/or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a proceeding under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, M.C.S. Act), challenging the recovery certificate u/s 101, directly by avoiding or not resorting to the statutory remedy u/s 154 and section 154 (2A) of The M.C.S.Act ? 2. Whether the remedy u/s 154 r/w section 154 (2A) of the M.C.S.Act could be termed to be a statutory remedy available and not merely an alternate remedy ? 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued vehemently and at length that in the peculiarity of the facts of his case and relying upon reported judgments, the petitioner's case is fit enough to be entertained directly by this Court under its writ or supervisory jurisdiction without direc...
Arun Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
1. Appellant-original accused No.1 Arun Jagtap (hereinafter referred to as accused), who is in jail was tried along with accused No.2 Ratan Jagtap and accused No.3 Rahul Suradkar in Sessions Case No.148/2011 before the Sessions Judge, Jalna for offence under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). Only the appellant came to be convicted and only under Section 307 of IPC and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10 Lakhs and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Sessions Court directed that, on depositing of fine by the accused or after recovering it, the same be paid to the victim Gangadhar Limbaji Pagare (P.W.2) as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). Thus, this appeal. 2. The case of prosecution in short is as follows :- (a) On 26.4.2011, P.W.1 Sanjay Limbaji Pagare, (hereafter referred as complai...
Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Present applicant who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules) and the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month, has filed present Criminal Revision Application. 3. In brief, the case of the applicant is as under:- The applicant was charged that he was operating a Bakery in the name and styled as 'M/s.New Royal Bakery' without any license and that the toast, which he was selling, was found to be adulterated one, when its samples were sent by PW 1 - Food Inspector to the Public Analyst as it contained Tartrazine. As regards the next charge leveled against the applicant that the toast was found adulterated, the s...
Suryakant and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
1. Appellant No.1 Suryanakt Chandrakant Gade and Appellant No.2 Shashikant Chandrakant Gade (original Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, hereafter referred as accused No.1 and accused No.2) were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Sessions Case No.118 of 1993 for offence punishable under Section 307, 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('I.P.C.' in brief). They have been convicted for offence under Section 307 and 325, both read with Section 34 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.5000/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year, and for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C., each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. The Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. The trial Court directed the amount deposited by the ac...
Ratnadeep Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. The applicant/appellant is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code and convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No.16 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013. The applicant/appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.290 of 2013. By order dated 21st August, 2013, the said appeal is admitted. 2. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had filed Criminal Application No.4750 of 2013 under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short Act of 2000). This Court, after hearing both the parties, passed order dated 15th January, 2014 directing the Juvenile Justice Board, Latur, to initiate inquiry in respect of the age of the applicant within the four corners of the relevant Act and the Rules and conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible, as stated in Rule 12 of the said Rules. Pursuant to the order dated 15th January, 2014, the applicant submitted the ...
Murlidhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
1. Appellant Murlidhar Namdeo Thite (hereinafter referred as 'accused') has been prosecuted in Sessions Case No.127/1996 before 2nd Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shrirampur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in brief), but came to be convicted under Section 325 of the IPC and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of fine, he has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, present appeal was filed. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as under: (a) On 30.11.1995, Police Patil Vilas Dahatonde (P.W.1) of village Chanda, Taluka Newasa, filed F.I.R. with Police Station, Sonai. He reported that, the accused resides at the village with his family, which includes Vatsala (hereinafter referred as the 'victim'), who is his sister and who is crippled and has to crawl on floor to move. On that day of 30.11.1995, in the afternoon at ar...
Shaikh Mujeeb and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
1. Before the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.86 of 2002 following were the 7 original accused: 1) Shaikh Mujeeb s/o Shaikh Maheboob 2) Hanuman @ Hanmant s/o Kashinath Ugale, 3) Sadashiv Kashinath Ugale, 4) Ramesh s/o Sugand Kamble, 5) Shivaji s/o Madhavrao Suryavanshi, 6) Promod @ Ramatya Madhavrao Suryatale, 7) Mahesh Ramkishan Sharma. Out of the above accused, accused No.6 Promod died during pendency of the trial. Rest of the accused came to be convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, present Criminal Appeal No.459 of 2004 was filed by original accused Nos. 1 to 3. Appellant No.2 Hanuman died pending this Appeal and the matter abated regarding accused No.2 Hanuman. Original accused Nos.4 and 5 Ramesh Sugand Kamble and ...
Kalyan Santram Kawade and Others Vs. Khanderao alias Khandu Ganpati Ka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioners are challenging an interlocutory order dated 26/02/2014 below Exh.18, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have preferred RCS No.268/2013 before the Trial Court, seeking a declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of land Survey No.29/A admeasuring 2 Hectre 2 R, Survey No.30/A admeasuring 41R and Survey No.29/E to the extent of share admeasuring 44R. These claims alongwith other connected claims are set out in the claim petition of the respondents especially from paragraph Nos. 1 to 7. The petitioners have filed their reply / written statement to the plaint. An application for temporary injunction and temporary relief is admittedly not pending on the file of the Trial Court. 4. The respondents moved an application below Exh.18 seeking appoin...
Venkat Gangadhar Bilapatte and Another Vs. Tulsabai Baburao Dahiphale ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2014
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were duly served, no one appeared on their behalf when the matter was called out. Office note shows that, Appeal stands dismissed against Respondent No.5 Prabhakar Sude vide Registrar's order dated 7th September, 2004. 2. This First Appeal is preferred by original Resp.Nos. 1 and 2 driver and owner of the Tractor and Trolley challenging the Judgment and Award dated 14th October, 1997 passed by the Member, M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 266 Of 1994 holding that original Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 i.e. the New India Assurance Company and the United India Insurance Company Ltd. are entitled to reimbursement of the Interim compensation amount paid by it to the original claimants from the Appellants. 3. In the present proceedings, the accident took place on 26th April, 1994 in which one Pandit Bapurao Dahiphale, age 20 years, occupation labourer and agriculturist died. Hence, his legal heirs filed M.A....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »