Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S. V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petitions assail same notification and seek the same declaration. The challenge to the notification and declaration is based on same set of facts and law, as such to avoid rigmarole the petitions are decided together. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are residents within the territorial limits of Satara Deolai Municipal Council. Initially Satara and Deolai were separate Gram Panchayats. After following the procedure as enumerated in the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as to the "Municipal Councils Act" for the sake of brevity) vide notification dated 28.08.2014, Satara Deolai Municipal Council was constituted including the territories as specified in the said notification. After establishment of the Satara Deolai Municipal Council, the Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 148/2004 (Old No. 117/02), which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Majalgaon and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 277/1994 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon. The suit filed by the present appellants for relief of declaration and temporary injunction is dismissed. Both the sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of 4 Acre portion (1 Hector 21 R.) out of Survey No. 182 (Gat No. 488) situated at village Talkhed. It is the case of plaintiffs that Mariba, the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 5, was holding the property and it was joint family and ancestral property. It is contended that Mariba was Karta of the joint Hindu family and in that capacity and for legal necessity, Mariba sold the suit property to the plaintiffs. 3. It is the case of plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had filed a collusive suit against the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The undisputed factors considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and the record available are as under: a. Respondent No.3 initiated the selection process for appointment of Anganwadi Sevika?. b. The interviews were held on 17/06/2011. c. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika? on 24/06/2011 being first in the order of merit. d. The petitioner joined as an Anganwadi Sevika? on 28/06/2011. e. Respondent No.5, who had also competed with the petitioner, challenged the selection and appointment of the petitioner in the light of the circular dated 25/05/2011 and raised a dispute as regards allotment of marks to the petitioner. f. The petitioner was allotted 9.50 marks in the interviews with 2 members of the Interviewing panel having allocated 10 marks each in her favour. g. Respondent No.5 scored 3.25 marks in the light of 2 members of the Interviewing Panel hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides in extenso on 29/06/2015 and 11/08/2015. Both the learned Advocates today have placed reliance upon reported judgments. 3. Considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and the record before the Court, the following aspects are undisputed: a. Punja Thorat was a daily wager who died on 26.12.1992. b. Pandharinath Mane was a daily wager who died on 07.09.1996. c. Nanasaheb Punja Thorat is born on 01.06.1968. d. Vitthal Pandharinath Mane is born on 01.06.1974. e. Both these persons were 24 years and 22 years old respectively when their fathers passed away. f. Nanasaheb and Vitthal filed the applications seeking appointment on compassionate basis on 15.07.2004 and 16.07.2004, which is about 12 years and 08 years after the demise of their fathers. g. The Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994 whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioners in all these petitions were the employees of Respondent No.2/ Institution and were working with Respondent No.3/College till their termination dated 17.04.2012 communicated to them on 21.04.2012. The Petitioners are identically placed and the Respondents in all these petitions are the same. 3 The Petitioners are said to have been terminated by the order dated 17.04.2012 which was communicated to them by the Institution on 21.04.2012. These Petitioners approached the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4305/2012, 4307/2012 and 6672/2012. By order dated 30.10.2012, this Court disposed of the petitions by observing that the Petitioners have an alternate statutory remedy of approaching the University and College Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as Tribunal?). All the issues were kept open. 4. The Petitioners filed their Appeals before the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondent was appointed as a conductor in the MSRTC in 1998. On 26-03-2009, the respondent was manning the bus on the Sakri-Nashik road. A flying squad checked the bus at Ozar main gate and found a female passenger travelling from Satana to Nashik to be in possession of Ticket No. 317070 and 176744 for an amount of Rs. 30/- each and one ticket bearing No. 36910 of Rs. 2/- which were unpunched. Similarly, Rs. 28/- in excess were found in the cash bag of the respondent. 3. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner dated 15-04-2009. A departmental enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer held the respondent guilty of the charges levelled upon him. A second show cause notice dated 22-10-2009 was issued to the respondent and he was finally dismissed from the Department on 30-12-2009. 4. The respondent preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 20 of 201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment:(R.M.Borde, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner no.1 Yogesh Pandharinath Dalvi in Writ Petition No.8640/2015 is Sarpanch of village Panchayat, Jogeshwari, taluka Gangapur, district Aurangabad. According to the petitioners, the elections to the Village Panchayat were held during the earlier tenure and the results were declared on 6.9.2010. The first meeting of the Village Panchayat was conducted on 14.9.2010. The elections of the Village Panchayat for the term between the year 2015 and 2020 are held and the results are declared on 6.8.2015. The Collector has issued a notice for holding elections to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch of the newly elected body of the Panchayat on 21.8.2015. The petitioners are, thus, objecting to the holding of elections for the posts of Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch for the tenure between the years 2015 and 2020 on 21.8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Since all these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 27th July, 2011, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, in Sessions Case No.36 of 2008, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. So far as Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2011 is concerned, the same is preferred by appellant/original accused no.1 Ramdeo, who is convicted vide section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 3. Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2012 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra, questioning the acquittal of accused no.1 Ramdeo for an offence punishable under sections 498-A read with sec. 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; acquittal of accused nos.2 and 4 Saraswati and Indira, respectively, for an offence punishable under sections 302, 498-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28/01/2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (in short, Act of 1948) Aurangabad, in Appl. (MWA) No.1/2013. 3. The submissions of Mr.A.V.Patil on behalf of the petitioner is as under: a. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of transportation, ware house services and logistics. b. The petitioner has its own buses, cars, tractors and forklifts. c. The petitioner also hires different types of vehicles for rendering transportation services to its customers. d. Respondent No.2 is the Employees' Union which represents the claimant workers, who are mentioned in the annexure at page 36 to 63. e. The said Union submitted a charter of demands on 16/01/2013 to the petitioner claiming wage rise benefits and other long term benefits. f. Several meetings were conducted for explor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
V.K. Jadhav, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are as under:- 2. On 7.3.2012, the respondent District Collector, Beed issued an advertisement for filling up 46 clerical posts, 59 posts of Talathi and 12 posts of Peon. In the said advertisement, it was specifically stated that selection list would be prepared on the basis of written examination of 200 marks, to be conducted by the selection committee. From 1.4.2012 to 8.4.2012, the admit cards/hall tickets were issued to the respective candidates, including the petitioners by the Selection Committee. The question papers of written examination were framed by the Selection Committee under the chairmanship of the District Collector. On 8.4.2012, the written examination was conducted by the Selection Committee. In due course, to cross-check the correctness of result sheet, an answer key was also published by the Selection Committee and after consideri...
Tag this Judgment!