Mumbai Aurangabad Court September 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.
Shakuntala and Others Vs. Chandrakant and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
1. The instant appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in RCS No. 120 of 2000, which was pending in the Court of Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambajogai and also against the judgment and order in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2014, which was pending in the Court of District Judge - 3, Ambajogai. 2. Heard learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 3. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 - Chandrakant for relief of specific performance of contract of sale of agricultural land against the appellants, which was in respect of portion of three acres land out of survey No. 290, situated at village Chanai. The defendant-Yashwant, who was alive on the date of the suit, was a brother of father of the plaintiff. 4. It is case of the plaintiff that, the defendant, under agreement dt. 26th February, 1997, had agreed to sale the suit property to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. It is contended that, on the date of the agreement, the amount of ...
Ismail Musabhai Memon Vs. Abdul Aziz Anvar Inamdar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar and also against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2007 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-1 Nandurbar. Relief of injunction is granted against the appellant to prevent the nuisance by the trial Court and the decision is confirmed by the first appellate Court. Both sides are heard. 2. The plaintiff and the co-sharer are owners of property bearing CTS No.2407/1-A situated at Nandurbar. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant is in possession of property bearing CTS No.2407/1-B situated adjacent to the property of the plaintiff and the defendant is illegally running a saw mill on property CTS No. 2407/1-B. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is not having necessary licence to run the saw mill. It is contended that due to machinery of saw mill there is nois...
The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Com ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 22/03/2013 delivered by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.16/2008. 3. It is pointed out by the petitioner that out of 4 charges leveled upon the respondent vide charge sheet dated 31/07/2006, only 1 charge has been proved under Rule 86(3), clause 4 of Schedule K. 4. The punishment proposed against the petitioner vide order dated 27/02/2007 was that the loss of Rs.4,000/- caused to the petitioner be deducted from the salary of the respondent and the punishment of stoppage of one increment for 1 year and the period of suspension to be considered as a part of the punishment. 5. The respondent put forth his reply on 23/03/2007 and stated that none of the charges are proved against him and he deserves to be exonerated. However, by order dated 26/05/2006, the petitioner imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for one year agains...
The Grampanchayat, Nadiwadi Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur, Through its Sarpan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. All the petitioners in these petitions are the Gram Panchayats, who are represented by their Sarpanch / Member. These petitioners have put forth their grievance on behalf of the elected members of the gram panchayats. 3. The respondents in each of these petitions are Statutory Authorities. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Aurad, (Shahajani) is respondent No.5, who has not caused an appearance despite service. 4. Since an identical issue is involved in all these cases, this Court (Coram : Sunil P.Deshmukh, J.) had considered these petitions and had passed a common interim order dated 04/08/2015. It is in these circumstances that all these petitions have been heard finally together by the consent of the parties. 5. The undisputed facts in these cases are as under: [a] Respondent No.5 APMC is situated at Aurad Shahajani and all the petitioners gram panchayats fall within the jurisdiction ...
Bhausaheb Balkrishna Ghare Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar (Respondent No.2 herein) and the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik (Respondent No.3 herein) by which Appeal No.22/2014 filed by the Petitioner has been rejected. 3. The contentions of the Petitioner can be summarized as follows: (a) The Petitioner was appointed as a Gram-Sevak in Panchayat Samiti, Ahmednagar on 01.07.1991. (b) In 1993, he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Sangamner. (c) On 31.05.2011, he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Akole. (d) The charges with reference to which the Petitioner has been held guilty and punished, pertain to his tenure as GramSevak in Chincholi Gurav Gram Panchayat in taluka Sangamner. (e) He had worked as Gram-Sevak in the year 2006-2007 in Pimpalgaon Deva Gram Panchayat....
Ahmed Pyarmohammad Atar and Another Vs. Digambar Kalidas Salunke and A ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Per Court: 1. The appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.362 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of Adhoc District Judge, Ahmednagar. The learned Adhoc District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court delivered in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 1998 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda. The suit was filed by present Respondent for relief of possession of some open space on which there is a construction of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but the relief is given by the first Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. This Court has gone through the record. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is owner of house property bearing CTS No.1842 situated at Shrigonda, district Ahmednagar and it is his ancestral property. It is contended that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have made construction of a stall of the size of 10'x10' on this property when they have no...
Shaikh Ali Ahmed and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No.376/2008. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was appointed as Electrician on daily wages since August, 1985. However, the respondent Department designated the petitioner as Pump Operator, and paid daily wages admissible to the post of Pump Operator. On raising the grievance for non-payment of daily wages of the post of Electrician, the Superintending Engineer, by letter dated 20.11.1991, approved the proposal for grant of daily wages of the post of Electrician to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No.5 sanctioned the same with effect from 1st June, 1991. The respondent authorities, subsequently, stopped daily wages of the post of Electrician. Therefore, the petitioner approached to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai by filing Original Application No.1251/1992, se...
Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The above mentioned three Criminal Applications i.e. Criminal Application Nos.6173/2013, 6175/2013 and 6176/2013 are filed, praying therein for quashing FIR No.27/2013, FIR No.06/2013 and FIR No. 13/2013, registered on 7th April, 2013, with the Dhule City Police Station, Dhule and Devpur Police Station, Dhule, by the Respondent No.2 under Section 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Region and Town Planning Act, 1966, respectively. In brief the facts disclosed in the Memo of Application, leading for filing the said Criminal Applications, are as under: 3. It is the case of the Applicant that, the Government of India, pursuant to the new Telecom Policy, decided to allow Private Operators to provide basic and cellular telecommunication and paging services in India, which would put the country in the global telecommunication map. On 13th August, 2000, the Government of India opened the in...
Bapu and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.596/2011 is filed by the original accused and Criminal Appeal No.437/2014 is filed by the original complainant, praying for enhancement of the sentence. Since both these Criminal Appeals are arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Beed in Sessions Case No.40/2011, both these Criminal Appeals are being heard together. Facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. One Uttam Rambhau Ovhal [hereinafter referred as ˜the complainant™] lodged the complaint with City Police Station, Beed, stating therein that, he is the resident of Barshi Naka, Beed. In his house, there are his parents, one brother namely Gautam and three sisters and all of them reside together. He is employed in daily ˜Dainik Marathwada Sathi™, since last 7 years prior to the date of incident, he is working as a Recovery Agent. The complainant is doing the work of collecting money for the aforesa...
Annarao Vs. Dnyanoba
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Not on Board. Mentioned. Taken on Board. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court below application Exhibit-5 which was filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in RCS No.442/2015. 4. The Petitioner/ Plaintiff is a legal practitioner. The Respondent/ Defendant had engaged the services of the Petitioner in LAR No.1625/2001, in Special Darkhast No.131/2009 as well as in Special Darkhast No.37/2015. 5. The issue is as regards the unpaid professional fees as well as expenses incurred by the Petitioner in conducting the above said three cases on behalf of the Respondent. 6. The Petitioner has preferred Regular Civil Suit No.442/2015 before the Trial Court seeking recovery of the unpaid fees and expenses. An application Exhibit-5 for seeking attachment of the decreetal amount in LAR proceedings to the extent of unpa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »