Mumbai Aurangabad Court February 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.
Madhukar Sikshan Prasarak Mandal Khinala and Another Vs. The State of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
P.R. Bora, J. 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 admission stage. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashment of orders dated 7.7.2012; 6.9.2014 and 12.9.2014. Petitioner No.1 is a registered trust duly registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Petitioner No.2 is a school run by petitioner No.1 trust. 3. Petitioner No.1 had started petitioner No.2 school in the year 1992 and successfully run the same till the year 2012. The school was duly approved by the Government and was also receiving grant-in-aid from the Government. In the year 1999, a license was received to run the said school and the said license was regularly renewed by the respondents till 31st March, 2011. The license issued by Respondent No.3 to run the petitioner no.2 school has been cancelled by Respondent No.3 vide order dated 7.7.2012. Before passing the aforesai...
Balu @ Balasaheb and Another Vs. Uttam and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
1. The appeal is admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard both sides for final disposal. 2. The appeal is filed by original claimants of Claim Petition No.92/2011 which was pending before Claims Tribunal, Beed. The claimants are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and so they have challenged the decision. 3. Deceased Ranjana was wife of claimant no.1 and mother of claimant no.2. The age of the deceased was 28 years as per the case of claimants. The age of claimant no.1 was 30 years and age of claimant no.2 was 3 years at the relevant time. It is the case of the claimants that deceased was working in field and she was making income of Rs.4500/- p.m. Under the head of loss of dependency and other heads, compensation was claimed. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,41,500/- on fault liability. 4. The tribunal has presumed notional income as Rs.3000/- p.m. and the compensation is calculated. The amount like Rs.5000/- is given under t...
Sachin Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant/accused has been convicted by learned District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Shrirampur in Sessions Case No.49 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II and 506 of Indian Penal Code; and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act. He was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was recorded for the other offences. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The appellant along with other four accused faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 384, 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code; Section 3(25) of Arms Act; and Section 37(1)(3) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The other accused, however, were acquitted and the appellant came to be convicted, as detailed supra. 4. The prosecution case, in short, is as under: That on 15th October, 2011, the complainant PW 1 - Kamlesh Jagtap...
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Through its Registrar, Jaganna ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. All the above petitions have been admitted by this Court on 8.3.2011. 2. The order passed by this Court on 8.3.2011 reads as under: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Union has no authority to file the complaint on behalf of retired employees. He further submits that there is no relationship of employee and employer as such between the retired employees and the petitioner herein. He further submits that the complaint was filed in 2004 making grievance about the pension which according to the complainant was due to be paid in 1996. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint filed by the respondent Union was beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that these writ petitions, relying on the pleadings in the petitions and grounds raised therein, may be allowed. 2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my at...
Shamsundar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. Both the appeals have arisen from the order of conviction dated 15/03/2012 passed by the learned Special Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded in Spl. (ACB) Case No.2/2008, for the offences punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the respective appellants. 3. Both the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. 4. The prosecution case in brief is as under: That appellant - Shamsundar was posted as P.S.I. while appellant - Balaji was posted as a Constable at Mudkhed Police Station during the relevant period. On 20/7/2007, the appellants had seized country liquor bottles from the house of complainant PW1 - Raosaheb Ramrao Deshmukh of village Chikala, Taluka -Mudkhed. Complainant was arrested and was kept in the cell of the Police station. Friend of complainant, namely, Sanjay Ingole came to meet the complainant in the lock-up. At th...
Vidya Rambhaji Ambhore Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: (B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 22/24.12.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting proposal of petitioner for approval as Shikshan Sevak in respondent No.4 School run by respondent No.3 institution. (C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature to direct respondent No.2 to grant approval of petitioner as Shikshan Sevak pursuant to appointment order dated 09.08.2012 and further direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to pay Rs. 8000/- per month as Honorarium to petitioner from her date of joining onwards. 3. The brief facts leading for filing this Writ Petition are that, the Respondent No.2 by its order dated 1st October, 2010 appointed Deputy...
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Branch Manager, Dhule Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Per Court: 1. The first proceeding is filed against judgment and Award of Claim Petition No.19 of 2012 and the second proceeding is filed against Judgment and Award of Claim Petition No. 1122 of 2011. Both the claim petitions were pending before Claims Tribunal, Dhule. The Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the insurance company and so the insurance company has filed the appeals. Both the sides are heard. 2. The challenge of the insurance company is on the limited point viz. the liability in respect of deceased who were in transport vehicle. It is the case of insurance company that both the deceased persons were present in the transport vehicle as passengers and so risk of such persons was not covered under the policy. Meager amount of compensation is given by the Tribunal by presuming notional income as Rs.3,000/- in both the cases when the accident took place in the year 2011 and so the challenge is not on the point of quantum. 3. It is the case of claimants f...
The Secretary, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Vs. Ghansham
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Mr.Choudhari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously criticized the judgment of the Labour Court dated 08/12/2009 by which Complaint (ULP) No.41/2005 was partly allowed. He is aggrieved even by the judgment and order of the Industrial Court dated 27/07/2012 by which Revision (ULP) No.25/2010 has been dismissed. 3. The strenuous submissions of Mr.Choudhari can be summarized as follows: [a] The Marathwada Sheti Sahayya Mandal (MSSM) is a public trust registered under the provisions of The Bombay Public Trusts Act and the Societies Registration Act. [b] MSSM was established in 1969 for ensuring water resources management, land development, dry land farming, forestation, development and research in agricultural land. [c] The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is a National Agency established by the Department of Agriculture, Union of India. ...
Momin Matin Ahmad Mobin Ahmad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. Rule. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5677/2014 that, the petitioner was working as Physical Education Teacher in Urdu Medium Girl s High School at Ter. The services of the petitioner have been terminated due to derecognition of the school. Thereafter, the petitioner did approach before the School Tribunal by way of filing Appeal. The School Tribunal at Solapur is pleased to allow the appeal of the petitioner, and directed the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the waiting list of the teachers, who are due for absorption. The service record of the petitioner is in the custody of the respondent no.2. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents have issued an advertisement for filling in the posts of teachers including Physical Education Teacher, without considering the claim of the petitioner for absorption. There...
Umesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Devel ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned communication / letter dated 17.03.2015 passed by respondent no. 6. There is further prayer, seeking directions to respondents to issue the appointment order to the petitioner on the post of Live Stock Supervisor in the office of respondent nos. 5 and 6 Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, under Nomadic Tribe reserved category forthwith, with all other consequential service benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner passed H.S.C. Examination in February, 2004. The petitioner also passed Diploma of two years in Diary Development Management and Animal Husbandry of the Maharashtra Husbandry and Fishery Science University, Nagapur in April / May 2006. The petitioner, thus, is possessing the requisite qualification of being appointed on the post of Live Stock Supervisor , as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad, District Services [Recruitment] Rules, 1967, as amended from time to time [for the sake of convenience,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »