Mumbai Aurangabad Court March 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.
Rajan Kalia and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Sanjay Udeshi, instructed by Mrs Chaitali Kutti on behalf of the petitioners; Mr Tele, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned Counsel Mr R.F. Totala, assisted by Mr Rahul Totala on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. By way of present petitions, the petitioners - original accused have questioned the complaint filed by respondent no.2 herein bearing Misc. Application No.151 of 2010, filed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna and impugned order dated 1st April, 2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the police officer to investigate into the matter under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") and submit charge-sheet or report on or before 22nd April, 2010 and consequential first information report, dated 1st April, 2010 registered with Sadar Bazar police station, Jalna. 3. The petitioners claim to be Executives of Max...
Rajendra Popat Waghmare and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
1. Second Appeal No. 255/2016 is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2012, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 96/2013, which was pending in the Court of District Judge-2, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2012 was filed by in all eight traders for relief of declaration and injunction against present respondents, the State Government and the Collector. These eight traders challenged the decision in First Appeal, but out of the eight plaintiffs only five plaintiffs have challenged the decision of the First Appellate Court by filing present appeal. 2. Other Second Appeal No. 256/2016 is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 8/2012 and judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 95/2013. The said suit was filed by eight traders and all the traders have come to this Court to challenge the decisions of the Court...
Vinod Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No.2 of 1994 convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as under: Conviction under SectionSentence7Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.200/- in default Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days.13 (2)Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for one month. 2. Prosecution case in brief is as under: On 12th September, 1993 Madhukar and Ramesh brothers-in-law of Complainant Shivram Tukaram Kharde were arrested by Shivajinagar Police Station, Nanded. They were taken to Tahsil office in the evening. Accused was serving as junior clerk in Tahsil office. He was to assist senior clerk PW-6 Padhye working in the office of Executive Magistrate. Complainant was informed that his brothers-in-law were arrested...
Asha Vs. The President, District Selection Committee/Collector and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking quashment of the select list prepared by Respondents Nos.1 to 3 pertaining to the appointment to the posts of Pharmacists on the establishment of Zilla Parishad, Beed so far as it relates to inclusion of the names of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the said list. The petitioner has also sought the direction against respondents Nos.1 to 3 to issue appointment to her on the post of pharmacist on the establishment of Zilla Parishad, Beed. The select list so prepared by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the inclusion of the names of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is in violation of the constitutional provisions and against the reservation policy. 3. The contents of the petition reveal that the petitioner had applied for the post of Pharmacist to be filled in by Zilla Parishad, Beed in pursuance of the adv...
Balaji Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Transport ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition is filed seeking direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to issue appointment order appointing the petitioner to the post of Driver in the employment of respondent no.3. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 initiated recruitment process for filling up the posts of Drivers in the year 2015. The petitioner is possessing requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Driver. Therefore, he applied for the said post. Respondent no.2 conducted written examination. The petitioner passed the said examination, and his name is included in the select list at Serial No.550. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for verification of the documents by respondent No.3. During the course of verification of documents, the petitioner was told by respondent no.2 that, he possesses Secondary ...
Sajid and Others Vs. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) 1. This Court had issued notice on 17.3.2016 and 23.3.2016. Mr.Kagne and Mr.Patil, learned A.G.Ps submit that necessary instructions are received from the Officers who are present in the Court. 2. With the consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 3. Both these Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law, as such to avoid rigmarole are decided by common judgment. 4. Mr.Mandlik, learned Senior counsel and Mr.Rakhunde, learned counsel for respective petitioners submit that the village Panchayat Waibazar, Tq. Mahur,Dist.Nanded and Village Panchayat Gokunda, Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded are entirely scheduled areas. In case of Village Panchayat Waibazar, there are 13 seats, out of that 7 seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and one seat is reserved for Scheduled Caste. As per Ist proviso to Section 10(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, the reservation of the seats meant for Backward c...
Namdev Bhagwanrao Ghule Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. The petitioner assails order/notification dated 01.12.2015 thereby bifurcating Agricultural Produce Market Committee Jintur (for short "A.P.M.C. Jintur") and constituting Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bori (for short "A.P.M.C. Bori"). 2. Mr. Hon, the learned senior counsel submits that, the A.P.M.C. Jintur is established in the year 1961. At that time there were 231 villages, but lateron due to establishment of new taluka only 170 villages are covered under the area of operation of A.P.M.C. Jintur. Village Bori is also under the area of operation of A.P.M.C. Jintur. Said village is hardly 13 to 15 kilometers away from Jintur. Most of the villages in the area of operation of A.P.M.C. Jintur are situated around Jintur within 25 to 30 K.M. radius. Jintur A.P.M.C. is near to all the villages and surrounding agriculturists. Earlier because of the local M.L.A. the Government had issued notification on 01st March 2004 bifurcating A.P.M.C. Jintur. The said not...
Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. Two Appeals are filed by the original claimants and remaining two Appeals are filed by the State Govt. to challenge the Judgments and Awards of L.A.R. No. 1243/2002 and 1244/2002, which were pending in the Court of the Civil Judge [Sr.Division], Osmanabad. As the compensation is enhanced u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, 'Act'], State Govt. has challenged the decision and as the compensation is not given as per some sale instances proved by the claimants, they have filed the Appeals. Both sides are heard. 2. The lands of both the claimants are acquired for the construction of residential quarters for the servants of State Govt. 40 R. land of claimant from Reference No. 1243/2002 is acquired from S.No. 220/4/b. 20 R. portion from the same land of the claimant from Reference No. 1244/2002 is acquired for the same purpose and for the purpose of construction of road and for aforesaid purpose one more land of 30 R. portion from S.No. 212/2/6 of the claimant from Reference No...
Shivaram and Others Vs. Vrundavani and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner no.1 is original defendant no.1 whereas the petitioner nos.2 to 4 are original defendant nos.9 to 11. The Regular Civil Suit No.155/2009 is filed by respondent nos.1 and 2, who are plaintiffs, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paranda, for declaration of ownership, partition and separate possession of their ancestral and joint family properties. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2013 delivered by the trial Court by which application (Exhibit 110) in Regular Civil Suit No. 155/2009 seeking amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 has been allowed. While issuing notice, this Court has stayed the suit by order dated 13.3.2013 and since then the suit has not progressed. 4. Shri Devkate, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has strenuously criticized the impugned order. His submissions can be summarized as follows: a] The suit pr...
Trimurti Balak Mandir Shikshan Sanstha and Another Vs. Vithabai Bhikan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner management has challenged the impugned judgment dated 1.1.2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which the Appeal No.3/2009 filed by respondent no.1 employee has been allowed and she has been granted reinstatement with consequential benefits from the date of her oral termination, which is 23.12.2008. 3. After considering the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides, I find that this case is a classic example of an unscrupulous employer exploiting a teacher employee, who has been working in the said school for more than five years. 4. The contention of Shri Godbole, learned Advocate for the petitioner management, can be summarized as under: a] Respondent no.1 employee was allowed to work only to gain experience as a teacher. b] She was inducted as an extra teacher only for the purpose of enabling her to gain experience. c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »