Mumbai Aurangabad Court July 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.
Raghunath Ambadas Hatgale and Others Vs. The Divisional Controller and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners in these three petitions are identically situated. All three of them were appointed as Cleaners? on daily-wages at the rate of Rs.3/- per bus. All three of them claimed to have worked for a short duration of about two to three years. The Respondent is common in all these petitions. The issue that needs to be determined by this Court is common in all these petitions. I have, therefore, taken up these three petitions together for hearing and passing orders. 3. The Petitioner, in the first petition, claims to have worked from November, 1988 to 31.12.1990. He was orally terminated on 31.12.1990. 4. In the second petition, the Petitioner claims to have worked from January, 1991 and was orally terminated from 31.12.1992. 5. In the third petition, the Petitioner claims to be working from January, 1988 and was orally terminated on 31.12.1990. 6. All these three Petitioners...
Pallavi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: (B) The chargesheet and proceedings of Sessions Case No.255/2014 pending before the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad offences U/sec.307, 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Penal Code crime No.I-13/2013 registered with police station MIDC Aurangabad initiated on the basis of the chargesheet filed against the present petitioner be quashed and set aside;? Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, a lady namely Supriya w/o Vishal Sudke r/o Shradha colony (MHADA), HIG-13, Opp. Dhoot Hospital Mukundwadi Aurangabad lodged a complaint with P.S. MIDC CIDCO U/sec. 307, 323, 506 of I.P.Code against her husband alleging inter alia that the marriage between them was solemnized in 2008. The couple has been blessed with two children, one boy namely Harshad 5 years and a girl namely Mitali. 3. It is alleged that the complainant was treated well ...
Sumit and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard with the consent of the parties. 2. The present Petition is filed praying therein appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set-aside the Crime bearing CR No. 3/2014, registered at Ramanandnagar Police Station, Jalgaon and R.C.C. No. 404/2014, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalgaon. 3. So far Petitioner No.1 is concerned, Petition is already dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, adjudication of this Petition is confined qua the Petitioner Nos.2 to 9. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that, even if the allegations in the FIR are considered in its entirety, and taken at its face value, no offence is constituted against the Petitioners. It is submitted that, omnibus allegations are made in the FIR. There are no any specific overt acts attributed qua each of the Petitioners. The Petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 are old aged persons, and by no stretch of imagination, the allegations again...
Anant Tulshiramji Bajaj Vs. Sunil
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
1. The proceeding is filed by the landlord against the judgment and decree of Rent Appeal No.10 of 2011 which was pending in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge Aurangabad. The Principal District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree of possession given on the ground of default by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad in Rent Suit No.20/2006. Both the sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of property bearing Municipal House No.4/3/42 (CTS No.4395) situated at Machhali Khadak, Aurangabad. It is the case of the plaintiff that on monthly rent of Rs.751/- the suit premises was given to the defendant for using it as a shop. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was never regular in making payment of monthly rent and he is willful defaulter. It is contended that as the defendant had not paid the monthly rent of 36 months prior to the date of the notice, statutory notice dated 29-9-2005 was given by the landlord to the defendant, tenant a...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Anil Jagannath Pawar and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar has referred this matter for confirmation of death sentence awarded to respondent “ original accused Anil Jagannath Pawar in Sessions Case No.43/2011, vide judgment dated 16.10.2014. The Criminal Appeal has been filed by Anil Jagannath Pawar against death sentence awarded to him. The other accused No.2 Anil @ Piraji Sukhdeo Pawar was acquitted by the trial Court. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is as under:- On 13.8.2011, at about 10.30 a.m., daughter of P.W.1 Eknath (hereinafter referred as victim) was passing on bicycle from near Gat No.415 at Dorhale, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, belonging to one Nanasaheb Dange (P.W.3), and accused No.1 Anil Jagannath Pawar (hereinafter referred to as accused) dragged the victim girl, aged about 13 years, inside the field. She was taken inside portion of standing sugarcane crop and she was raped and murdered. The accused had come ne...
Dnyaneshwar Tauba Gonde Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 188/2013, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P. Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further S.I. for six months and further convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P. Code and sentencing him to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under: According to the prosecution case, the incident in question had taken place on 22nd February, 2013. On the day of incident, P.S.O. Wadod Bajar received the information and accordingly he registered A.D. No. 6/2013 and forwarded it to the Police Naik Pungle to carry out the investig...
Vikas @ Sadhu Gendev Hagare [Mali] Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant “ Original Accused No.1, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.8/2011, thereby convicting the appellant “ original accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- [Rs. Five Hundred only], in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 r.w. 34 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- [Rs. Three Hundred only], in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. The complainant [PW-1] Sajabai Bhagwat Hagare is the mother of deceased Tukaram Bhagwat Hagare and wife of PW-2 Bhagwat Balu Hagare. On 05...
M/s. NRB Bearings Limited Vs. Alisab Bapusab Shaikh and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. I have considered the submissions of Shri Dankh, Shri Sarvadnya and Shri Waikos. Issue involved is as regards the order of transfer issued to respondent No.1 workman which is challenged in Complaint (ULP) No. 56 of 2015. Application Exhibit U-2 has already been rejected by the Industrial Court, Jalna. 5. Shri Dankh makes a statement that the first respondent has already been allotted work in the factory premises of the petitioner and is working pursuant to the impugned order dated 8.7.2015, passed by the Industrial Court below Exhibit U-10, which was filed by the workman for seeking urgent orders under Section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. 6. While issuing notice to the respondents, I have considered the facts of this case, which are as under:- (a) The petitioner assails the order dated 08/07/2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalna below a...
Rajbahaddur Jiyaram Yadav Vs. Prakash @ Pappu Jiyaram Yadav and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
Per Court: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2015, delivered by the trial Court, below Exhibit 89 in Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2011, which has resulted in the rejection of an application seeking amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC?). 2. The petitioner contends that Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2011 has been filed for seeking declaration, partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the original defendants, who are real brothers of the petitioner / plaintiff. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the real sisters of the petitioner. 3. The father of the petitioner, who originally hails from Jaunpur, in Uttar Pradesh has migrated to Shrirampur in 1972, where he has started his business. 4. In the suit preferred by the petitioner, defendant Nos.3 and 6 have not caused an appearance despite service and hence the suit has proceeded ex parte against these two defendants by order dated 11.10.2011. D...
Balasaheb Ramchandra Burke and Others Vs. The President, Bahujan Samaj ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. These matters were heard on 15.7.2015 and thereafter on 29.7.2015. 5. All the petitioners claim to be the employees of the same respondent / management. All of them have been orally terminated on 15.7.2008. They are identically situated and the issue involved is identical. Respondent / management is the same. It is in these circumstances that I have heard these petitions together. 6. The contentions of the petitioners can be summarized as follows:- (a) In 1991, the respondent Management has started the Secondary School at Padalane, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. The school was recognized on non grant basis. (b) In 1995, the respondent Management had transferred respondent No. 3 School from village Padalane to village Kotul without prior permission of respondent No.4. (c) Respondent No.4 had cancelled the recognition of the School since the Management had ...