Mumbai Aurangabad Court April 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.
M/s. Radhesham Laxminarayan and Co. Vs. Kashmirilal and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
1. This is appeal against acquittal of respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act in brief), filed by appellant - original complainant. 2. Complainant M/s Radhesham Laxminarayan and Company is partnership firm and filed S.T.C. No.329/1994 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna against respondent No.2 - accused (hereinafter referred as accused) as two cheques issued by the respondent relating to purchase of grains had bounced, and in spite of notice, the amounts of Rs.1 Lakh each of the two cheques (total Rs.2 Lakhs) had not been paid. 3. The accused was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 22.2.1995. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No.8/1995, which came up before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. The first appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.7.2003, acquitted the accused of the offence. Thus this appeal. 4. Relevant facts are as follows: (a) Respondent Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta is proprietor of busi...
Bandopant Kishanrao Pathak and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking directions to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment and amount of arrears of 6th pay commission to the petitioners as per the Government Resolution dated 2nd February, 2008, and further seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pay the pension from their Department i.e. Accountant General, Nagpur as per Government Resolution dated 2nd February, 2008. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1979 and 1983 respectively, the petitioners were appointed as Clerks by respondent no. 5 Municipal Council Gangakhed. The petitioners have been given promotions as well as other service benefits regularly. As per the orders dated 30.04.2013 and 30.11.2012, the petitioners got retired from services from the posts of Assistant Accountant as well as Tax Valuer and Administrative Service, and from the post of Labour Supervisor respectively on attaining the age of superannuation. It is ...
Sindhubai Balkrishna Mayur and Others Vs. Jafarali Ismail Meghjani (di ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition has been admitted by this Court on 4.5.1995. 2. The respondents in this petition are the original defendants. Shri Jafarali passed away during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs, therefore, participated in the suit and thereafter in the Appeal proceedings. 3. The Court notice issued to the original defendants returned unserved since the defendants were not found to be residing at the suit premises. By order of this Court, dated 20.10.2004, notices were issued to the defendants on their new address. It is stated that the new address is the place where the defendants had a vacant plot during the pendency of the suit and the appeal and have subsequently, constructed a house. Since notice could not be served even on this address, the petitioner was granted liberty by order dated 1.12.2004, passed in Civil Application No.10401 of 2004 to serve the respondents / defendants by paper publication. Having so done, the petition was posted for final hearin...
Shilpa Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
P.C. 1. Applicant is praying for quashment of the First Information Report registered by Hingoli police being crime No.57/2015 on 29.05.2015. The crime is registered at the instance of Child Development Project Officer, Akhada-Balapur for commission of offences punishable under sections 468, 471, 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is alleged that applicant is instrumental in preparing false caste certificate with a view to claim employment from amongst the Scheduled Caste category. Caste certificate certifying that applicant belongs to Bhuddha caste is prepared by applicant and the same has been utilised for claiming employment from amongst the reserved category. Sub-Divisional Officer, Hingoli, by communication dated 28.08.2013 informed the office of Zilla Parishad that the caste certificate in question has not been issued by the said office. Writ petition bearing No.3988/2014 was presented by the objector which was disposed of with direction to the Zilla Parishad auth...
Jagganath Gorakh Patil and Others Vs. Bhagirathibai Gorakh Patil and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.152/2000 (Old No.Special Civil Suit No.54/1992), which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar and also against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2001, which was pending in the District Court, Nandurbar. The suit filed for partition and separate possession of Joint Hindu Family property was partly decreed by the Trial Court. Both the sides challenge the decision in first appeal which was filed by original defendants. The plaintiffs filed cross objection. The cross objection of the plaintiffs was allowed and the extent of share of plaintiffs in the suit properties is increased. Both the sides are heard. 2. Plaintiff No.1 - Bhagirathibai and plaintiff No.2 -Sushilabai, daughter of Bhagirathibai, had filed the aforesaid suit. Gorakh Patil was the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2. Defendant No.1 is the real brother of Gorakh. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are...
Sushil Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Schoo ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed aggrieved by the refusal to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Primary Teacher by respondent no.3. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is appointed after following due procedure in the year 2011, and therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned communication that, there is ban on recruitment from 2nd May, 2012 cannot be considered as a valid ground for not granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Primary Teacher. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tendered across the bar the copy of Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2013, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra and submitted that, by way of the said Resolution, the Government of Maharashtra granted extension of time so as to fill up the post of ...
Netaji Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. This appeal against acquittal has been filed by original complainant. Respondent Nos.2 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as accused) were arrayed as accused No.1 to 9 respectively in S.T.C. No.582/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghansawangi, District Jalna. The complaint was dismissed for want of taking steps by the complainant on 11.1.2012 and hence this appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he has filed civil dispute against accused No.1 Bakulabai. It is argued that, the complainant claims to be adopted son of accused No.1 Bakulabai, aged about 70 years. The case of complainant is that, he has filed suit against accused No.1 and while the suit was pending, accused No.1 sold the disputed land to accused Nos.3 to 6. The concerned land had various fruit bearing trees and the purchasers cut down the trees since 13.4.2007 and on 13.5.2007, burnt off the cattle fodder depot in the field. Accused No.2 purchased the wood after trees were cut. The complainant fil...
Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Princ ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
1. There are multiple prayers in the Petition, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at present the petitioner is seeking directions to stop the supply of water for manufacturing of liquor and make available the said water for drinking purposes to the citizens as per the State Water Policy, 2011. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that because of drought and acute scarcity of water many people and particularly the farmers are striving for their lives. The citizens are not being provided with drinking water. However, the production of liquor is no way affected, though there is acute scarcity of water. The respondents are under a legal obligation to provide water to the citizens for drinking rather than for liquor production, which directly or indirectly adversely affects the health of the citizens. As per Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of livi...
Dhanraj Bhaidas Patil (Jadhav) Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nasik and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.1.2012 delivered by respondent No.2, thereby allowing the Complaint filed by respondent No.5 and concluding that the petitioner stands disqualified under Section 14(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment of respondent No.1 - appellate authority dated 18.6.2012, by which Appeal No.16 of 2012 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 5. The submissions of Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner can be summarized as under:- (a) Respondent No.5 - Gram Panchayat resolved in 1980 to allot a piece of land to 12 agriculturists for erecting a cattle shade and for residing in the said area. Respondent No.5 was the Chairman of the Gram Panchayat committee which granted / allotted the land admeasuring 30...
Kiskinda Bapu Kale Vs. Sushilabai
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
1. Learned counsel for the Applicant-original complainant submits that this Appeal is against acquittal. According to him the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act" for short) was clearly established as the cheque issued by the Respondent-accused when presented, bounced and the Respondent should have been convicted. According to the counsel, the reasonings recorded by the trial Court for dismissal of the complaint were not maintainable. It is stated that the document Exhibit 25 was wrongly treated by the trial Court as withdrawal slip and not cheque. 2. The learned counsel for the Respondent-accused opposes and states that the reasonings recorded by the trial Court were correct and the acquittal was justified. 3. With the assistance of counsel for both sides, I have gone through the contents of Exhibit 25 which the complainant wants to rely on as a cheque. The document is of "Lokshradha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.". The printed wordings in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »