Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. The petitioner/employee is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22-12-2011 delivered by the School Tribunal whereby his Appeal No. 57 of 2002 has been dismissed. 3. The said Appeal was earlier dismissed by judgment and order dated 14-10-2010 which was quashed and set aside by this Court by its order dated 06-04-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 11668 of 2010. The appeal was restored on 28-04-2011 and was reheard. 4. The contentions of the petitioner in the light of the memo of admitted facts dated 28-01-2015 and oral submissions are summarised as under :- a) The petitioner has acquired the degree of Master of Arts and Bachelor of Education (M.A.B.Ed.) b) He was appointed on 15-07-1991 as a secondary school teacher. c) The petitioner and the respondent-management are covered by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (here-in-after referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
T.V. Nalawade, J. 1. The petition is filed to challenge the order dated 11-6-2002 made by the Committee constituted for scrutiny and verification of the tribe claims in Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of), Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe by name "Raj". In the present petition, relief of setting aside that order is claimed. Also relief of declaration is claimed that the petitioner belongs to the said scheduled tribe. Both the sides are heard. Original record was made available to this Court. 2. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to respondent No,2, Committee, by the college of the petitioner for verific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (I.K. Jain, J.) 1. The Appellant/ original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur in Sessions Case No.75 of 2011 (New), 32 of 2010 (Old). By the said judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused/ appellant as under:SectionsSentence302 read with 34 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.392 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month.201 read with 34 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month.The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the substantive sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently. 2. For the sake of convenience we shall refer the Appellant as he was referred before the trial court i.e. original accused. 3. The pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The proceeding is filed under sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of setting aside and quashing of the order dated 28-11-2007 made in RCC No.1058 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded by which the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed police to make investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relief of quashing of the FIR of CR No.122 of 2008 which came to be registered on the basis of the order made by the Judicial Magistrate is also claimed. Both the sides are heard. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also heard. 2. Respondent No.2 of the present proceeding has contended that he deals in pesticides and seeds and he is doing business in Nanded. Accused No.2 Anil Kulkarni is the manager of accused No.1 and they are doing business of supply of hybrid seeds. Accused No.1 is the Director of Global Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd, the office of which is situated in Gujarat. The complainant had agreed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. The learned APP is also heard. 2. The proceeding is filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of FIR in CR No. 141/2014 registered in Chavni Police Station of Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The Crime is registered on the basis of report given by Smt. Smita Khajekar against the petitioners. She was given in marriage to petitioner No. 1 - Mayur on 07/11/2010 and the marriage took place as per the rites and customs of Christan religion. During the pendency of the proceeding, submissions were made for petitioner No. 1 - Mayur, husband, that he wants to withdraw the petition and to that extent, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn. 4. It is the case of complainant/wife that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs. three lakh was given by her father to her husband. It is her case that she was treated w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. These Appeals From Order have been filed by original Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 being aggrieved by the Common Judgment dated 7th October 2006 passed by District Judge, Udgir allowing the Appeals and remanding matters, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2006 and Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 2006, which Appeals were filed by Respondent No.1 Sakharam Vasaram Pawar (in Appeal From Order No.86 of 2007) and Zimmabai w/o Sakharam Pawar (in Appeal From Order No.96 of 2007) respectively as their Suits being Regular Civil Suit No.133 of 2005 (filed by Sakharam) and Regular Civil Suit No.135 of 2005 (filed by his wife Zimmabai) had been dismissed as hit by provisions of Res-Judicata. By the Common Judgment dated 7th October 2006, District Judge, Udgir has allowed the Appeals of the original Plaintiffs and remanded back the matters to the Civil Judge, Junior Division for decision according to law and has also directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Trial Court had found the Regular Civil Suit N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case (Attro.) No.11/2011(New) [Special Case (Attro.) No. 4/2010 (Old)] which was pending in Court of Special Judge, Ahmedpur, District Latur. The appellants are convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocites) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Act' for short) and also for offence punishable under sections 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months is given and fine is also imposed. Both the sides are heard. 2. The complainant was working as Circle Agricultural Officer at Kingaon, Tahsil Ahmedpur, District Latur at the relevant time. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were working as Agricultural Assistants and accused No.3 had retired from the same office. It is the cases of complainant accused No. 1 to 3/appellants were constantly harassing him with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No.89/1999 which was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years and three years respectively is given and both the sentences are made to run concurrently. Both the sides are heard. 2. Deceased Mangal was daughter of original complainant Babu Narwade. She was given in marriage to appellant No.1 about four years prior to her death. The deceased has left behind one daughter aged about 7 months. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of appellant No.1. It is the case of the State that all the appellants were living in the same house where the deceased cohabited with appellant No.1. 3. It is the case of the State that ill-treatment was given to the deceased by husband and the parents of the husband...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition is filed with multiple prayers, however, the main prayer is for quashing First Information Report registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar vide C.R.No. 380/2008, dated 20.12.2008, filed by Sagunabai Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. By way of amendment, the petitioner has added further prayer for quashing charge sheet dated 15.01.2009, numbered as 18/2009, filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, pending as STC No. 29/2009. 2. It appears that, during pendency of this Petition, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), is in force and as a result further proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 380/2008, have not been proceeded further. It further appears that, this Court issued 'Rule' on 18th November, 2009. The Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner and his wife are the Doctors by profession, and practicing at Ah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. On 02/02/2015, after hearing the petitioner and the learned AGP, I had passed the following order:- "1. The petitioner whose Sonography Machine has been sealed on the ground of failure to maintain proper records and obtain the consent of the patient seeking to under go Sonography, is the only cause for the sealing of the Sonography machine. 2. The petitioner further submits that if at all documents are not properly maintained, they would evidence irregularity on the part of the petitioner. However, in the light of the judgment of this Court (Coram :- S.V.Gangapurwala, J.) dated 11-09-2012 delivered in Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2012 in the matter of Dr. Mrs. Sukhada W/o Dilip Mulay Vs State of Maharashtra and others, it clearly lays down the law in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 that the Sonography machines can be sealed by the appropriate authority only if it is satisfied that the said machine would furnish evidence of commission of offence punishable under the Act. 3. Shri Warma, the...
Tag this Judgment!