Mumbai Aurangabad Court February 2015 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.
Malu Dhondapa Bule (deceased through his legal heirs) and Others Vs. B ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
1. The group of these three Writ Petitions can be decided by this common judgment, in view of the fact that these three Writ Petitions arise out of the judgment and order, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Revision No. 122/B/2000/AN, dated 18.6.2001. The petitioners in all these three petitions are aggrieved by the said judgment and order, in view of the fact that the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the Revision and thereby set aside the order, passed by the Assistant Collector, Rahuri, dated 16.4.1985 in Appeal No. 13 of 1983 and directed that the petitioners be evicted from the suit land and possession of the suit land be restored to the Revision Applicants. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. In all these three Writ Petitions, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are (1) Bburao Sakharam Adik and (2) Padmakar Sakharam Adik. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed the proceedings in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar under Sectio...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Balasaheb Kashinath Shendage
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 02.04.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.172/1995, thereby acquitting the Respondent Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the I.P. Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: 2. On 4th March, 1995 at about 9.20 hours one Santosh Shantilal lodged the Khabarto the Takali Dhokeshwar Police Outpost, contending therein that, Balasaheb Kashinath Shendage [accused] is the tenant of the complainant. While he was asleep, the accused came from the back door of his house, and told him that come to see what has happened in his rented premises. Thereafter, informant visited the house of the accused and found that, wife of the accused namely Urmila was lying in dead condition due to burning. There was a stove near her. He visited the Police Outpost Takali Dhokeshwar and lodged the khabar. On the basis of said Khaba...
Ravindra @ Balu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 27/1996 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under sections 363, 366-A and 376 of Indian Penal Code. Maximum sentence of R.I. for seven years is given and all the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Both the sides are heard. 2. Prosecutrix is a daughter of complainant Anna (PW 1). She was studying in 9th standard in a school from Zilla Parishad at Ladsavangi, Tahsil and District Aurangabad at the relevant time. At the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years. A sister of the appellant/accused was a friend of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix used to visit the house of the said friend frequently. The accused was running a cycle shop at the relevant time near his house and so, he could develop sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. He promised her to marry with her and kept the relati...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Pralhad Maruti Rankhamb and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th September, 1995 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.23 of 1993, thereby acquitting the respondents / accused of the offences punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of IPC, the State has filed this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The complainant Shahaji Vithal Sasture, son of the deceased Vithal Sasture had filed complaint. Manohar, Yuvraj and Shivaji are brothers of this witness. Complainant's brother Manohar was married with one Vijayabai daughter of Pandurang Rankhamb from the village Kaddora i.e. village of the complainant. Vijayabai had no brother or sister. Her father was having 6 acres 30 gunthas land. Out of which, he sold 4 acres land to Manohar. Accused are cousin brothers of Vijayabai. They were expecting to get this land sold by Pandurang to Manohar. As Pandurang sold this land to Manohar, they were annoyed. There were quarrels with family of ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Nina Trambak Tadas
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
A.M. Badar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th May, 1995, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 338 of 1994, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for the sake of brevity). 2. Facts projected from police report leading to the prosecution of the respondent/accused can be summarized thus:- [a] Respondent/accused Nina Tadas, is cousin uncle of Gajanan Pandurang Tadas (since deceased). According to prosecution case, there was a dispute between the family of Gajanan Tadas and respondent/accused Nina, over open land situated nearby their house leading to the filing of civil suit by Pandurang Shankar Tadas (PW-2) father of deceased Gajanan. [b] The incident in question allegedly happened on 5.9.1994 at village Harankhkeda, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, where the parties were residing. It was day of 'POLA' festi...
Shivaji Kadaji Pawar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, and accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, preferred the Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2011. The trial Court convicted the appellants accused No.1 Shivaji s/o. Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo s/o. Shivaji Pawar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code, and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of two years. The appellants original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, original accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, and original accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. Two Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of six months, and the ...
The State of Maharashtra Through the Executive Engineer, P.W.D.(North) ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted on 3.3.1995. By order dated 23.2.2000, passed below Civil Application No. 949 of 1999, the petitioner was directed to pay the last drawn wages to the respondent / employee (as on date of his termination on 8.6.1987), under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent was engaged as a Daily-Wager for performing duties as a Watchman from 22.1.1986 till 7.6.1987. The respondent claims that he was appointed as a Watchman on 1.11.1984 and terminated on 8.7.1987. He preferred Reference (IDA) No.19 of 1988 for challenging his termination which was allowed by the impugned Award dated 5.4.1994. 3. Having heard the learned Advocates, I have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance. Apparently, there was no documentary evidence on record to establish that the respondent had worked as a Watchman with the petitioner from 1.11.1984 to 7.6.1987. One month's notice of termination...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Baban Kerba Jondhale and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 31.08.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Case No.132/1994, thereby acquitting the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P. Code and Section 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P. Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: The deceased Sarubai, was the daughter of complainant Jayabai [PW-3]. About 4 Years before the death of Sarubai, the marriage of Sarubai had taken place with accused No.1 Baban. As per the prosecution case before about one year of incident, the accused No.1 Baban demanded the amount of Rs.10,000/- and watch from the parental house of deceased Sarubai, but the complainant Jayabai, widow lady, was not able to give the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, but fulfilled the demand of watch. It is further the case of the prosecution that, the accused persons were used to beat and ill-treat deceased Sarubai, as t...
Madhav Vs. The Chairman, Market Committee, through Addl. Secretary, A. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
1. This group of Civil Revision Applications arises from common order passed by District Judge-1, Osmanabad, on 16.1.2013 (hereinafter referred as impugned order), in group of Misc. Civil Appeals having Nos.50/2012 to 60/2012. The common order was passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.51/2012 and the copies of the order were kept in other Misc. Civil Appeals. Counsel for both sides have submitted that, in all these appeals, the parties are common except for respondent No.9, the obstructionist in the execution proceedings. Both the counsel argued by referring to the Petition in Civil Revision Application No.49/2013 and agreed that, rest of the Revision Applications have similar facts and points of law involved. I will refer to the petition and documents from Civil Revision Application No.49/2013. 2. In a sentence, what has happened in these matters is that, in the course of execution filed by the decree holder to recover possession from the judgment debtor, various obstructionists filed appli...
Shankar Vs. Ishaq and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a Revision against the judgment and order of acquittal, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, dated 14.10.2002 in Regular Criminal Case No. 23 of 1999, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the present respondent nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The present Revision is preferred by Shankar Shivappa Patale (PW 2), who is the first informant and Shivraj Shankar Patale, the injured (PW 3). 2. I have heard Shri Mohit Deshmukh, advocate holding for Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Nilkanth Pawade, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Shri V.P.Kadam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor or respondent no.6/State. 3. Shankar Shivappa Patale, who was examined as PW 2, lodged report with police station Murum on 4.1.1999. Since, the said report (Exh.37) was disclosing commission of cognizable offence, police authorities registered the ...