Mumbai Aurangabad Court November 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.
Mahesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks his release on bail pursuant to his arrest on 30th June, 2016 in connection with Crime No. 494 of 2016 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Beed for offences punishable under Sections 326, 326A, 374, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. 3. As per F.I.R. dated 30th June, 2016, the applicant runs Ashirwad Bhojanalaya in which he had employed one Ganesh aged about 12 years against his wishes. On making necessary enquiry, it was found that Ganesh had been working in the said Bhojanalaya. He was not being paid despite doing work. It was further stated that when he had demanded his money, he had been assaulted and given burns. On that basis, offence came to be registered under the aforesaid Sections. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant tha...
Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal Vs. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
ORDER ON APLICATION IN EP NO.74 OF 2016 IN ELECTIONI PETITION NO.6 OF 2014: 1. The application is filed by respondent No.1 to raise objection that evidence in chief in the election petition filed under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 cannot be given on affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Heard both the sides. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 took this Court through various provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules made by the High Court, Original Side Rules 1980, and also Article 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 129 of the Civil Procedure Code. He placed reliance on two reported cases like (1) AIR 2005 SC 2441 (Kailash v. Nanhku); and, (2) AIR 1982 SC 983 (Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal). 3. The relevant portion of the provision of section 87 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 runs as under :- "87. Procedure before the High Court. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules...
Hemand Vs. Sharad and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
Oral Order: 1. By the present application, the applicant who is the informant, on the basis of which F.I.R. No.384 of 2015, for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent no.1. 2. The respondent no.1 has been accused of preparing and sanctioning eight loan cases with regard to non-existent persons, so as to enable such persons to get benefit under the NBCFDL scheme conducted by the Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati and Bhatkya Jamati Development Corporation, Latur. After aforesaid offence was registered, the applicant applied under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which application came to be allowed by the Sessions Court by order dated 9th December, 2015. This order is sought to be cancelled by the applicant. 3. Mr Malte, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Judge of the Sessions Court was not justified in granting anticipato...
Zilla Parishad, Through its Chief Executive Officer and Others Vs. The ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (A) Writ Petition No.6666/2006 : 1. The Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad is aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.07.2006 delivered by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP) Nos.23/2000 and 101/2000 vide which both the complaints have been allowed and the Employees mentioned in Annexure-A to the Complaints, have been granted benefits of the Kalelkar Settlement coupled with the Bhole Commission Recommendations and accordingly, the Zilla Parishad has been directed to take these Employees on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) after completion of five years as daily wagers. 2. This Court, by order dated 14.12.2006, has elaborately dealt with the issue involved in this petition. The litigating sides were permitted to file their written notes of submissions and upon minutely considering the same, this Court admitted the petition and directed the Petitioner/Zilla Parishad to bring the Employees on CRTE within a period of three weeks. The direction of the Indus...
Gangadhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. K.N.Lokhande, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad, by which the applications filed by the petitioner/accused seeking adjournment to cross examine the prosecution witnesses are rejected and as a consequence, the petitioner/accused has lost an opportunity of cross examining the prosecution witnesses. 3. Though, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 56, and the facts of the present case, the following order is passed to sub-serve the ends of justice. (i) Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Auran...
Hitendra Ramesh Deshmukh and Others Vs. The Returning Officer and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the Returning Officer for the election of Municipal Council, Chopda, District Jalgaon. Both sides are heard. 2. The petitioner had prayed for giving common symbol to the candidates of their registered political party and they had requested for giving Road Roller as symbol to all candidates of the registered political party. They have registered their political party under the name as Shahar Vikas Aghadi, Chopda and it was registered in the year 2007. The Returning Officer has rejected the application by holding that Annexures I and II which were required to be supplied before 04.00 p.m. of 29th October, 2016 i.e. the time given for filing the nomination form were not supplied and so common symbol cannot be given to the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel of both sides took this Court through various provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Election Rules, 1966 and Maharashtra Election Sym...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›