Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioners, by this petition, filed under Article 226 read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge Clause 3 of the Government Resolution No. SSN-1702/9/2002/MA.SHI-2, dated 3.8.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said GR). 4. The petitioners, in this petition, have prayed as under:- (A) By issuing a appropriate writ or order or directions this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare and consider the services of petitioners as part time librarians and further it may be hold that, the petitioners are governed under the Old Pension Scheme i.e. Maharashtra civil Services (Pension Rules) 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1984 and the General Provident Fund which are applicable to the Librarians, who came to be appointed prior to 01./11/2005 and entitled for pensionary benefits ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. All the three proceedings are filed to challenge the notice given under section 41A (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Criminal Writ Petition No.416 of 2015 is filed to challenge the notice issued in respect of CR No.24/2014 registered in Ardhapur Police Station Nanded for offences punishable under sections 179, 272, 273 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sections 26(2)(i), 26(2), 27(3)(d), (e), 59 etc. of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and it is mainly in respect of Goa Gutkha and other similar food articles. In this crime Goa Gutkha worth Rs. 8.81 lakh was seized. Charge sheet is already filed but the police wants to make further investigation under section 178(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present petitioner is not shown as accused in the charge sheet but the material seized and information collected shows connection of the petitioner with Goa Gutkha manufacture. 3. Criminal Writ Petition No.380 of 2015 is filed in respect of CR No.5/2015 registered with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for seeking directions to the respondent Municipal Council to finalize the pension of the petitioner and make payment along with other monetary dues, including payment of gratuity, commutation of pension, etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as are payable to the petitioner. By way of amendment, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the departmental enquiry initiated against him vide letter dated 10th July, 2009, be held to be illegal and bad in law. 3. The brief facts as are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition are as under:- The petitioner claims that he joined the services of respondent Municipal Council w.e.f. 25th June, 1985 in the capacity of Clerk in class III cadre. Upon adorning permanency in the services of Municipal Council, the petitioner was po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking directions against the Respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Traffic Controller from the open category, even though he belongs to the reserved class. 3. Most of the facts are undisputed. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner entered into the services of the Respondent Corporation, after completing the required formalities in the year 1981, as a Conductor. There is further no dispute that, the Petitioner belongs to Rajput Bhamta Scheduled Tribe and the said caste is recorded in the service book of the Petitioner. There is further no dispute that, the caste certificate of the Petitioner has not yet been validated by the concerned Caste/Tribe Scrutiny Committee. 4. In the year 2011, the Respondent Corporation advertised the promotional post of Traffic Controller vide notice published on 30.06.2011. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
V.K. Jadhav, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner is seeking issuance of writ or order quashing and setting aside the compromise recorded below Exh.16, by the LokAdalat held on 3.3.2013 at Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.365 of 2012 and consequential Award below Exh.18 dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are as under: The Respondent no.1/original claimant had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.365/2012 in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lacs) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident on 9.4.2012 against the owner, rider and the present petitioner, who is the insurer of the said motorcycle. The Respondent No.1/original claimant was the pillion rider on the motorcycle at the time of alleged accident. According to the petitioner, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition is by the plaintiff-landlord. The petitioner-landlord, on or about 14th December 1978 filed Regular Civil Suit No.914 of 1978 in the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar against the respondent in relation to the suit property in which the respondents are inducted as tenants. It is claimed by the petitioner that the suit property is located in Ward No.1, bearing City Survey No.52, Municipal House No.5806. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the defemdants-tenants are in possession of three rooms on the ground floor of which possession was sought. The possession was sought mainly on the ground of nuisance and annoyance i.e. Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House rates control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity), bona fide need i.e. Section 13(1)(g), willful default Section 12 (3) (a) and 12 (3) (b) of the Act. 2. The said suit was resisted by the tenant by filing writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The applicant original defendant has filed this revision against the respondent original plaintiff challenging the judgment and order of Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded, dated 5.9.2011, passed in regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009. By this judgment and order, the Adhoc District Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the 4th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in Regular Civil Suit No.115/2008. Regular Civil Suit No.115/2008 was filed by respondent Mirabai for decree of eviction of the applicant, the tenant. The suit was decreed and thus, the appeal had been carried to the Adhoc District Judge. 2. The applicant claims that, the trial Court had proceeded exparte in suit after the bailiff reported refusal of the summons and had relied on the affidavit of the son of respondent and decreed the suit. The suit had been brought by the respondent claiming bonafide requirement and on the basis that, the lease granted by registered agreement of 15 years had lapsed. The revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of all parties. 1. These two applications can be disposed of by this common order, since both are questioning the correctness of the order, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dated 24.2.2014 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2014, by which anticipatory bail was granted by the learned trial court in favour of Naresh Patil for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Application NO. 2566 of 2014 is filed by the State; whereas Criminal Application No. 4430 of 2014 is filed by Shivhar Manmath Swami, who has lodged the first information report, dated 5.2.2014 bearing Crime No. 33 of 2014 against Naresh Patil who was granted anticipatory bail. 2. I have heard Smt. Pratibha Bharad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; Shri B.R.Kedar, learned counsel for the first informant for the applicant Shivhar in C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Felt aggrieved, the appellant is before this court to challenge his conviction, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months, as imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated 12.10.2000 in Sessions Case No. 358 of 1996. 2. The prosecution case, as it was unfolded during the course of the trial, can be narrated as under: MadhukarAute (PW 9) was attached to police station Gangapur as Police Sub-Inspector in the year 1996. He received a message from the Tahsildar on 22.1.1996 at 4.30 p.m. that a quarrel is going on in front of the Tahsil office and large crowd has gathered there. Upon receipt of such information, he rushed to the spot with police staff. There, he noticed accused persons and the complainant party had indulged themselves into the free fighting with variou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 finally with consent. 2. Respondent No.1 (original Plaintiff hereafter referred as "Plaintiff") has filed Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2014 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Corporation Court, Aurangabad against Planning Authority Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 hereafter referred as Defendant Nos.1 and 2) and present Applicant, arrayed in the Suit as Defendant No.3 (hereafter referred as "Defendant"). The Suit filed is for suspension/cancellation of permission of construction issued by the Municipal Corporation and Assistant Director of Town Planning (Defendant Nos.1 and 2) in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 21st March 2014. The Plaintiff claimed suspension/cancellation of the permission of construction and consequential relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made in view of the permission and also has claimed perp...
Tag this Judgment!