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.
Shankar Vs. Sainath
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order M.A.R.J.I. No.16/2009 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Khultabad, District Aurangabad. The said proceeding was filed under provision of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff. The trial Court has held the present petitioner guilty of breach of order of temporary injunction and the trial Court has ordered to send the present petitioner to civil prison for 15 days. Both the sides are heard. 2. The provision of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC was not made applicable to this State in view of the Bombay Amendment of 1st October 1983. It appears that there are conflicting decisions on the tenability of the revision against the order made under aforesaid provision. It appears that in cases reported as 1993 (1) Bom. C.R. 131 (Dry Chillies Brokers Association v. Dnyaneshwar Chamat) (Nagpur Bench) and 2002 (3) Bom. C.R. 593 (Vitthal Shriram Kharbadkar v. Pandurang Irbhanji Kad...
Suresh and Another Vs. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the advertisement dated 27th July, 2011 [Annexure-D Page-80] for selection of distributors for LPG issued by the respondents. It further also prays for quashing the April, 2011 Guidelines [Annexure-C Page-60]. 2. The learned counsel Mr. R.R.Mantri appearing for the petitioner submits that, it is settled position of law that, while distributing public largesse, the same are to be distributed based on the criteria, which have nexus to the object of the particular grant by selecting beneficiaries for effecting transparent procedure. Any law made contrary to the above cannot stand to the scrutiny of test of constitutional validity, and would amount to arbitrariness. In order to achieve the objective of directive principles of State policy and to uplift the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes etc., the provision is made for making available the infrastructure as well as corpus funds for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe...
The Dhulia Motors Owners Co-operative Consumers Stores Limited Dhule V ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.135/2009 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Dhule and also against the judgment and decree of Civil Appeal No.22/2012 which was pending in the Court of the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Dhule. The suit filed by the present appellant for relief of declaration that the decision of Special Civil Suit No.155/2005 decided by the Civil Judge Senior Division Dhule is not binding on him and for further relief of perpetual injunction to protect his possession over the suit property is dismissed by the trial Court and this decision is confirmed by the first appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2. To ascertain the main points involved in the litigation, the history of the litigation to some extent needs to be given. It is as follows, incident wise: (i) The suit property is 28.33 R portion (30600 square feet) of Survey No.484/1 situated at Dhule. This property was owned by one Mehmood Ma...
Prakash Ghasit Dhikkyav and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and An ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. In all these matters, the petitioners are Class IV workmen, who are identically situated and fall in the same Class. The respondents in all these matters is the Municipal Council, Bhusawal. The issue involved is identical and hence all these petitions have been taken up together for common hearing. 5. I have heard Shri Patil, Shri Jadhav and Shri Nagori, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of all the petitioners. I have heard Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Municipal Council and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 6. The petitioners have contended that they had been appointed as Field Workers in the Malaria Section of the respondent Municipal Council, in the year 2009 and 2010. Their common date of termination is 17.11.2011. All of them have completed 240 days in the continuous and uninterrupted service of the respond...
Pandit Vs. Shakuntala
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
P.C. 1. The respondent moved Misc. Criminal Application No.78/2014 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Hadgaon [District : Nanded], which came to be allowed on 22nd July 2015, ordering payment of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent by the present petitioner, she being stepmother of the petitioner. The revision carried before the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide Criminal Revision No.90/2015 suffered same fate, as is apparent from the order dated November 21, 2015. As such, the present petition. 2. Mr. Gangakhedkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would strenuously urge that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1996(4) SCC 479, has taken a view that a childless stepmother may claim maintenance from her stepson, provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is not capable of supporting and maintaining her. According to Mr. Gangakhedkar, there is married daughter to the present responde...
Ambadas Raghunath Wagh Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court dated 12.1.2016 by which application (Exhibit U-2) seeking interim relief u/s 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, has been rejected and the status quo granted on 8.12.2015 was vacated. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.2.2016 delivered by the Industrial Court by which Revision (ULP) No.5/2016 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Shri Barde, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that on 10.3.2014, it was alleged by the respondent Corporation that the petitioner is under the influence of liquor. He was charge-sheeted on 12.4.2014 and suspended on 13.3.2014. The suspension was revoked on 14.5.2014. He, therefore, submits that notwithstanding the charges leveled upon him, the petitioner was reinstated in service as a Dri...
Royal Carrier and Courier Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (R.M. Borde, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioners are transporters operating passenger vehicles on the routes prescribed under the Reciprocal Agreement entered into between the State of Maharashtra and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Reciprocal Transport Agreement has been entered into between the two states on 1st March, 2007, primarily for prescribing the agreed routes in regard to operation of the stage carriage services. The agreement also prescribes tax on passengers leviable under the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passenger) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1958') which will be on the basis of 70% load factor of seating capacity of the passenger vehicle. According to petitioners, it is not permissible for the State to levy and demand passenger tax at the rate of 70% of load factor of seating capacity of the passenger tr...
Janab Pir Sultashah Sadar Bhandari Mutawalli Vs. Shamshadbi Adam Shaik ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. Revision is admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Waqf Suit No. 64/2009, which was pending before the Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 - Smt. Shamshadbi to challenge the decision given by the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board in Case No. 54/22/2008. That proceeding was started on the basis of application made by present petitioner for taking action u/s. 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is the case of petitioner that he is Mutawalli of Waqf institution and the property belongs to waqf institution. Prayer was made to remove the encroachment of the plaintiff of the suit from Survey No. 51/3 situated at Ankali, Tahsil Miraj, District Sangli. After giving notices to both the sides, inquiry was held by Chief Officer. The plaintiff had filed written arguments before the Chief Officer, but she did not produce the record to substan...
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. All these petitions have been admitted by this Court. Considering the nature of the dispute and taking into account that the respondent-employees had given an undertaking before the Cooperative Court, interim relief was not granted in these matters. 2. The petitioner in all these petitions is the State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The deceased Respondent No.1 in the first petition and the respondents in the other three petitions are identically placed. Considering the common issues involved in these matters, all these matters have been taken up together for hearing, by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the identical judgment delivered by the Cooperative Court, Nanded dated 07.05.1990 and the judgment delivered by the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 15.10.1993. 4. Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner-management submits as under:- (a) The respondents were working with the petitioner since around 1963...
Babasaheb Vs. Jayshree and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. By the present petition, the petitioner - husband questions legality and validity of the order dated 31st October, 2014, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No.45 of 2013, whereby the application preferred by the respondent - wife for restoration of maintenance proceedings, which had been dismissed in default, came to be allowed. 2. Facts, as are necessary for decision of the present petition, are as under :- Respondent no.1 claimed to have married to the petitioner and has given birth to child, namely, Sakshi - respondent no.2. In view of indifferences between the parties, the proceedings seeking maintenance were initiated before the Family Court, Aurangabad. The said proceedings came to be dismissed in default for absence of respondent no.1 Jayshree. Respondent no.1 thereafter filed application for restoration before the Family Court, which was strenuously objected by petitioner Babasaheb by filing reply, refuting the cause for restor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »