Mumbai Aurangabad Court April 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.
Ganesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Shinde, J. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes an oral prayer to substitute the words Assistant Teacher by words Shikshan Sevak. Oral prayer granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner herein possesses B.Sc.B.Ed. Qualification. He came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher by respondent No.3, which runs four aided schools by order dated 31st July, 2014. On 2nd September, 2014, respondent No.2 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on no grant basis. In Mangaleshwar Vidyalaya run by respondent No.3, there was a workload of Mathematics subject and no teacher of this subject was available. On 20.6.2014 Respondent No.3 proposed to transfer the petitioner to the said school however, the petitioner sought guidance of respondent No.2, who advised that if the said teacher is granted approval, the transfer can be effected as a Shikshan Sevak. On 1.9.2014 the peti...
Vikram Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
1. The present appellant is convicted by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Aurangabad on 22.8.2000 in Special Case No. 2 of 1995. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case is as under: On 18.1.1994, PW 1 Limbaji Sonawane lodged his complaint (Exh.24) with Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad. Sum and substance of the said complaint is that, at village Chinchwan he and his brother Kisan are having one agricultural fi...
Dr. Geeta Vs. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent, Rule is heard finally. 2. By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has mainly prayed for the following reliefs:- (B) By issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, the impugned communication dated 18.10.2014, issued by the respondent No.3 Registrar, cancelling the membership of the petitioner as member of the Academic Council and Management Council of respondent No.1 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, may be quashed and set aside. (C) It be held and declared that the petitioner, being teacher, having 16 years teaching experience, is member of the Academic Council and Management Council of the respondent No.1 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. 3. By the impugned communication dated 18th October, 2014, issued by respondent no.3 University incorporated under section 3 ...
Babu Vs. Sheshrao
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
Per Court: 1. I have heard Shri Jadhav, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri. Jain, learned Advocate for the sole respondent for quite some time. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 07-02-2013 delivered in R.C.S.No. 206 of 2006 as well as by the judgment of the Appeal Court dated 29-12-2014 delivered in R.C.A. No. 45 of 2013. 3. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff and the appellant is the original defendant. Suit for removal of encroachment of land admeasuring 30 R was instituted by the plaintiff. The defendant was alleged to have indulged in an act of encroachment to the extent of the said land. 4. It was the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of land admeasuring 1 H. 05 R in survey No. 63/C. He had got the suit property in a partition in 1984-85. He had applied for measurement on 13-02-2012 on account of the alleged encroachment by the defendant. Measurement was carried out on 28-12-2012 and it was revea...
Deelip Vs. Yakub Khan
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
1. The appellant (original plaintiff hereafter referred as plaintiff) had filed Regular Civil Suit No.1900/2012 (Old Special Civil Suit No.535/2008) for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages in lieu of licence fee with interest from respondent (original defendant hereafter referred to as defendant). The suit was decreed on 30.3.2013. The defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.138/2013, which came to be allowed on 30.9.2014 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court with directions to frame proper issues and decide the suit by giving sufficient opportunity to the parties. It is against this order dated 30.9.2014 of the appellate Court that the present Appeal from Order has been filed. 2. Facts material for dealing with the present matter can be stated as under: Plaintiff filed the suit claiming that on 16.2.2006 defendant has executed registered agreement of leave and licence with reference to the...
Gitabai Vs. Anusayabai and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
1. This matter was heard on 08.04.2015. After hearing the learned Advocates for quite sometime, this matter was adjourned to 09.04.2015 at the request of the parties. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides. 2. The issue is as regards the claim for death compensation under the earthquake and resettlement scheme floated by the State Government vide Circular No.MNN-1193/05550/93 dated 14.12.1993. 3. Smt.Anusayabai Hanumant Bairagi is the Plaintiff in RCS No.387/1997. She is the mother of deceased Shardabai. Shardabai was married to Mahavirdas Narsingdas Bairagi, resident of village Killari. Shardabai and Mahavirdas had three daughters and one son. 4. In the earthquake that occurred on 30.09.1993, Mahavirdas, Shardabai and their four children have died. Gitabai Narsingdas, who is mother of Mahavirdas, mother-in-law of Shardabai and grandmother of the four children, claimed the entire compensation as the legal heir of the son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren. Gitabai is the...
Rajendra @ Raju Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
1. The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Original Application No. 220/2013, which was pending before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Bench at Aurangabad) (hereinafter referred to as 'MAT' for short). The proceeding was filed by present respondent No. 5 to challenge the appointment of petitioner made by Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar on the post of Police-patil of village Dedgaon, Tahsil Newasa. MAT allowed the proceeding and quashed and set aside the appointment of petitioner. Both the sides are heard. The learned AGP supported the decision of MAT. 2. It is the case of respondent No. 5 that when the application was made for the post, present petitioner was having two wives and two children from each wife. He contended that if second wife was not legally wedded wife, her status can be considered as concubine and in that case, it needs to be presumed that the present petitioner was not having of good moral character and so, he was not fit to get ap...
Vankatesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the impugned order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the Respondent No.3, with further prayer to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to release monthly salary of the petitioner since October, 2014 onwards. It is further prayed that, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to restore, maintain and regard the order of approval dated 28.08.2012 and confirmation order dated 06.08.2013 granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak as well as Assistant Teacher and grant seniority, pay scale and all other advantages / benefits as per Rules to the petitioner on the basis of orders of approval. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner belongs to Open Category and he is working on the School, which is receiving 100% grant in aid since long back. Due to promotion of senior most teach...
Akramkhan and Another Vs. The Collector, Latur Collector Office, Latur ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard Shri V.J. Dixit and Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocates on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No. 2, respectively and also the learned AGP, on 04-02-2015, 11-02-2015, 17-02-2015, 25-02-2015, 03-03-2015 and 04-03-2015. 3. The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 29-11-2014 passed by respondent No.1-District Collector, Latur thereby disqualifying the petitioners on an application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986. 4. The litigating parties to this petition, were earlier before this Court since the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 1451 of 2014. The request made by the petitioners before respondent No. 1 - District Collector in the disqualification application case No. 2013/NAPA/KAVI-661, for referring certain documents to the hand writing expert, had been rejected. By order...
Mahadevi Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Social Welfare Departme ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with following prayers: C] By issuing appropriate writ, directions or order in the like nature, the impugned judgment and order dated 7/4/2010 passed by Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jati, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward and Special Backward Class Caste Certificate Scrutiny and Verification Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad invalidating cast claim of petitioner for Jangam [58] [Other backward Class] may kindly be quashed and set aside. D] By issuing appropriate writ, directions or order in the like nature the caste claim of petitioner for Jangam-[58] [Other Backward Class] may kindly be allowed and the caste claim of petitioner may kindly be held as valid and respondent be directed to issue certificate of validity of Jangam [58] OBC Caste in favour of petitioner for that purpose issue necessary orders. Relevant facts disclosed in the Memo of the P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »