Mumbai Aurangabad Court January 2016 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.
M/s. Uni Klinger Ltd. Vs. Subhash Baburao Kambale and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by this Court by order dated 13.08.2004. Prior thereto, by an order dated 09.02.2004, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was granted, which was confirmed while admitting the petition. Prayer clause (C) reads as under: Grant stay to the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and order dated 28/08/2003 passed by the Learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) Nos.222, 223, 224 and 225 of 1991 marked at Exhibit C to the petition during the pendancy of the petition. 2. The order dated 13.08.2004 reads as under: Heard Shri V.N.Upadhye, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Shahane, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No.5, though served, absent. Rule. Interim stay in terms of clause (4) of the order dated 28/08/2003, impugned in this petition and status quo in respect of employment, as on today. 3. It is undisputed that except Respondent No.1 in this petition, namel...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Venkat and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the acquittal of present respondents from the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 and 306 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 20th March, 2014 passed by the learned 3rd Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No.14 of 2001, the State has preferred present appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:- That, deceased Mahananda was married to present respondent no.1 - Venkat on 1st April, 2000, who was son of brother-in-law (brother of wife) of the complainant PW 1 - Ashruba. In that marriage, dowry of Rs.18,000/- was given to the respondents. After the marriage, deceased Mahananda started residing at the house of the present respondents at village Nandadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. For about five months after the marriage, deceased Mahananda was treated well by the respondents. Thereafter, however, respondent no.1 Venkat, deceased accused Balbhim and respondent no.2 ...
Arun Gulabrao Ingole Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. The present appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Hingoli in Special Child Case No.09 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 02/04/2015 for the offences punishable under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") and section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under section 4 of POCSO Act. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. It was directed that in case the fine amount is recovered, compensation of Rs.20,000/- be paid to the victim child. 3. Case of the prosecution is that on 23/3/2014 at village Jawala Bk., Tq. Sengaon, the appellant has committed rape i.e. penetrative sexual assault on a five years old mino...
Santosh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. All the present Criminal Appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order dated 08/11/2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.57 of 2000. Therefore all the three appeals are decided by the present common judgment. 3. Present 4 appellants alongwith other 2 accused were charged of the commission of the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded after trial however came to the conclusion that out of the six accused, present four appellants i.e. accused nos.1,2, 3 and 5 have participated in the offence. Accused no.4 Ashok Marakwad was acquitted, while accused no.6 - Prakash Waghmare died during the pendency of the trial. According to the learned Sessions Jud...
Santoshkumar Ghisulal Jaju Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage. 2. Petitioner original complainant (hereafter referred as 'Complainant') in Misc. Application No.253 of 2008, has filed this Petition challenging the impugned order dated 24th November 2010 whereby his complaint came to be dismissed. It is stated that the Complainant went through a civil litigation against one Lahoti which was fought till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Complainant succeeded. At the time of execution of Darkhast for possession, Respondent No.2 original accused objected, relying on electricity bill to claim that he was in adverse possession. Consequently the Complainant collected information and came to know that Respondent No.2 got forged "Hami Patra" (i.e. consent letter) purporting it to be from his mother (though dead) consenting to pay charges for reconnection of electricity which had ...
Pawan Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Conservator ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 12th December, 2014, passed by the aharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No.693/2012, and also seeks directions to the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the father of the petitioner died, during the course of employment of the respondent No.2, on 24th March, 1995. He invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 8th March, 1985, and submits that, the legal heirs of the deceased, who are willing to apply on compassionate ground, can apply within 5 years from death for appointment on compassionate ground. He further invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 11th September, 1996, and submits that, if the legal heirs of the deceased employee are minor at the time of death o...
Santoshkumar Ghisulal Jaju Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage. 2. Petitioner original complainant (hereafter referred as 'Complainant') in Misc. Application No.253 of 2008, has filed this Petition challenging the impugned order dated 24th November 2010 whereby his complaint came to be dismissed. It is stated that the Complainant went through a civil litigation against one Lahoti which was fought till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Complainant succeeded. At the time of execution of Darkhast for possession, Respondent No.2 original accused objected, relying on electricity bill to claim that he was in adverse possession. Consequently the Complainant collected information and came to know that Respondent No.2 got forged "Hami Patra" (i.e. consent letter) purporting it to be from his mother (though dead) consenting to pay charges for reconnection of electricity which had ...
Pawan Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Conservator ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 12th December, 2014, passed by the aharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No.693/2012, and also seeks directions to the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the father of the petitioner died, during the course of employment of the respondent No.2, on 24th March, 1995. He invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 8th March, 1985, and submits that, the legal heirs of the deceased, who are willing to apply on compassionate ground, can apply within 5 years from death for appointment on compassionate ground. He further invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 11th September, 1996, and submits that, if the legal heirs of the deceased employee are minor at the time of death o...
Chandrashekhar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. Both the Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law. As such, to avoid rigmarole, the same are decided together. 2. The elections of respondent no.5 - Agriculture Produce Market Committee were declared and election programme was published. The same was to commence from 25-8-2015. Polling was scheduled on 25-10-2015. Counting of votes was to take place on 26-10-2015. On 18-10-2015, after nomination papers were filled in, one of the contesting candidates expired. In view of Rule 55 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 [For short, hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1967?], the order countermanding the elections was passed. As such, the poll scheduled on 25-10-2015 could not take place. 3. Fresh elections are declared polling of which is to be held on 31-1-2016. The programme states that the nomination papers would be filed from 3-12-2015 to 17-12-2015 and different stat...
Chandrashekhar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. Both the Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law. As such, to avoid rigmarole, the same are decided together. 2. The elections of respondent no.5 - Agriculture Produce Market Committee were declared and election programme was published. The same was to commence from 25-8-2015. Polling was scheduled on 25-10-2015. Counting of votes was to take place on 26-10-2015. On 18-10-2015, after nomination papers were filled in, one of the contesting candidates expired. In view of Rule 55 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 [For short, hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1967 ], the order countermanding the elections was passed. As such, the poll scheduled on 25-10-2015 could not take place. 3. Fresh elections are declared polling of which is to be held on 31-1-2016. The programme states that the nomination papers would be filed from 3-12-2015 to 17-12-2015 and different stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »