Mumbai Aurangabad Court October 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.
Purushottam Vs. Narayan
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2016
1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging two orders both of the date 23rd February, 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nandurbar in Civil Appeal No.17/2011. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the present appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar in Special Civil Suit No.13/2007. The aforesaid civil suit was filed by the present respondent, seeking partition and possession. Relief of permanent injunction was also sought. The learned Trial Court decreed the said suit partly and held the plaintiff and defendant therein entitled for half share each in the suit land and the suit house. 3. The civil suit filed by present respondent was resisted by the present appellant on several grounds. It was the contention of the appellant that the partition was already effected in respect of the suit properties in the year 1962. It...
Vinay Tilokchand Karnavat Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Se ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2016
K. L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.2, dated 5th September, 2013 along with public notice dated 24.02.2015 and the proceedings of advertisement No. 12/2014 by which respondent No.2 has fixed tariff. The petitioner has further challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 in Case No. 95/2013, dated 25.06.2015 by way of amendment in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is a consumer of respondent No.3-Company. Respondent No.2 is a Regulatory Commission established under the Electricity Act, 2003. It has power to fix tariff and is expected to be a watchdog of interest of the consumers and function transparently. 5. According to the petitioner, on 16.08.2012, respondent No.2 settled the tariff w.e.f. 1st August, 2012 in case No.19/2012. As per provisions of Electricity Act, respondent No...
Sayyad Yousuf and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Se ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Writ Petition No.6794/2012 is filed against the judgment and order dated 4th of August, 2012, passed by the School Tribunal at Latur in Appeal No.14 of 2011. Petitioner was respondent no.3 in the Appeal before the School Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal was filed by present respondent no.3 challenging promotion of the present petitioner on the post of Headmaster with a consequential relief to promote him on the post of Headmaster from 1.1.2003 by setting aside the promotion of the present appellant as Headmaster. 3. It was the contention of the present respondent no.3 in the aforesaid appeal that the present appellant was junior to him and could not have been appointed on the post of Headmaster, superseding his claim. As against it, it was the contention of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal that the appeal filed by respondent no.3 was hopelessly barred by l...
Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the seizure of goods under receipt dated 8.5.2002, notice dated 11.5.2002, and a complaint dated 18.10.2002 and the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad dated 19.10.2002 issuing thereby process against the applicants, the applicants prefers this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the same. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present application are as under: a] The applicant No.1, is a Company registered under the Companies Act having its office at Mumbai. The company has a manufacturing Unit/Factory at Aurangabad and the company is engaged at aforesaid unit, in manufacturing, inter-alia, toilet soaps. b] On 8.5.2002 respondent no.2 had inspected the toilet soap stored in the petitioner no.1's premises. It was noticed during the said inspection that the products of the company namely Palmolive Naturals Soap (with milk cream) and Palmolive Naturals Soap (Relaxing) have weighed lesser than the declared net...
Anna Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Home D ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Externment Appeal No.12/2016. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.4 issued a notice on 13.05.2015 stating therein that, why the petitioner should not be externed from the limits of Ahmednagar, Beed, Osmanabad and Solapur Districts for the period of two years on the ground that the petitioner has indulged into various criminal activities causing danger and alarm to the public order. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said notice and denied the allegations and also filed documents supporting his contention that the show-cause-notice is issued under the pressure of political persons. On 31st March, 2016, respondent no.4 passed an order invoking the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, thereby externing the petition...
Sunil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant Original accused no.3, challenging the judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.277/2012 (Old No.319/2009), thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. On 30.05.2009, accused no.1 Vitthal lodged the report at Police Station Waluj (Exh.60) alleging that his daughter-in-law deceased Swati has not woke up as usual in the morning, and when he tried to awaken her she was not responding, therefore, he took her to the Hospital where the Medical Officer found her dead. On his report, A.D. bearing No.15/2009 was registered. 3. PSI Suresh Bhale (PW-5) conducted the inquiry of A.D. He sent dead body for post mortem examinati...
Prashant Vs. Hon'ble Minister for State for Urban Development Departme ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed against the order of the Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development Department in a dispute filed by present respondent Rajendra Patil under the provisions of section 51(6) read with section 16(1)(a1) read with section 55-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the proceeding declaration was sought that respondent No.1, Pawar, present petitioner, was disqualified on the date of election held for the post of the President of Bhadgaon Municipal Council and after making such declaration to make further declaration that Rajendra Patil was elected in the said election as he had also filed nomination for the said election. Notice was issued in respect of this proceeding for hearing by the Government in August 2015. Initially present petitioner had prayed for transfer of the matter from the Ho...
Satish Ramchandra Rajput and Others Vs. The District Deputy Registrar, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The first proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Aurangabad, by which the application given by the present petitioners to include their names in voters list of one constituency created under section 13(1) (a) (i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation), Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) is rejected. It is rejected on the ground that they got elected subsequent to the last date fixed for filing nomination to election which was 12.9.2016 and it was also not within three days before the last date of nomination as required by Rule 36 (15) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short). 3. The learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the decision given by this Court in...
Arvind and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Statio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition is filed seeking quashment of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.217 of 2015 (for short FIR ) registered with Dhule City Police Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to the extent it relates to the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR are general in nature. There are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners. It is also not stated that on which date the incident of harassment and mental cruelty is caused. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 left matrimonial home on 07.06.2015 and the FIR is lodged on 03.11.2015. There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that, respondent no.2 has put it in writing on 07.06.2015 that, her husband and herself are from the medical profession, therefor...
Vilas Trimbak Sanap Vs. Shriram Rajendera Sanap and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
1. Heard. The appellant has filed the present appeal against Judgment and Order dated 12th January, 2016 passed by District Judge-1, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2015. 2. The appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.499/2014 for partition against his father and brothers claiming his 1/4th share alleging that father and brothers had refused to give him his share in the suit properties. In the aforesaid suit, compromise took place between the parties and on the basis of the said compromise-deed, the aforesaid civil suit came to be decreed by the learned trial court. 3. Present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who were not party to the aforesaid suit, filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 50/2015 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 29th December, 2014 passed by the Trial court. It was the contention of these respondents that along with the plaintiff and defendants in the subject suit, they also possess share in the suit properties and as such without there presence in the said suit, impugned d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »