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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhav Vitthal Bansode
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
1. This Appeal by State has been filed against the orders passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal on 31st May 2003 in Summary Criminal Case No.32 of 1999 whereby the trial Court, while convicting the Respondent accused for offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, instead of passing sentence of imprisonment or fine, directed his release on the bond of Rs.5000/- and the bond of "one month's period contemplated in Section 4" of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ("Probation Act" in brief). The present Appeal was filed by the State seeking leave under Section 377 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." in brief), with prayer to enhance the sentence awarded by the J.M.F.C. The Appeal was admitted on 5th October 2005. 2. In brief, the case is as follows: (A). On 17th December 1998 at about 4.15 p.m., complainant Raman Chaudhari (PW-1) filed F.I.R. with Bhusawal City Police Station informing that when he was at his tailor's shop in the...
The State of Maharashtra, Through The Public Prosecutor and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
1. Respondent original accused Rajendra Namdeo Shinde was convicted by VIIth J.M.F.C. Aurangabad in Regular Criminal Case No.1332 of 2001 on 11th January 2002 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief) and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer R.I. for further three months. Accused Rajendra Shinde carried Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2002 before Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and in the Appeal he came to be acquitted by Judgment and Order dated 6th March 2003. Thus, the State has filed this Criminal Appeal No.511 of 2003 against acquittal. The complainant Hanumant, who lost his daughter in the incident of rash and negligent driving, filed the Criminal Revision Application No.333 of 2003 against the orders of the Sessions Court. On his death, his Legal Representatives have come on record. 2. The facts in brief are as under: (A). Complainant Hanumant Pawar, on 10th Mar...
Sai Accumulator Industries Sangamner, Through its Partner, Kacheshvar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
1. This is an Appeal against acquittal of Respondent original accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" in brief). 2. Facts in brief may be stated as follows: (A). The Appellant original complainant (hereafter referred as "complainant") filed private complaint in the trial Court claiming that the complainant is a registered partnership firm and had business dealings with Respondent accused. Respondent had purchased battery plates from the complainant and against such transaction, on 18th May 1994 issued two cheques (Exhibit 46, 47), each of Rupees Twelve Thousand. The cheques were presented to Nagar Urban Central Cooperative Bank of the complainant on 16th November 1994. The Bank sent the cheques for collection to Indira Cooperative Bank of the accused. The cheques returned back to the complainant unpaid with memorandum (Exhibit 56) dated 22nd November 1994 reporting insufficient funds. Complainant issued notice (Exhibit 48) on 25th November 1994 through ...
Firoza Fazal Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties. 2. By this application, Applicant / original Accused challenges the order dated 25th February, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad below Exhibit 1 in Sessions Case No.300 of 2013. 3. Heard at length Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for Applicant and Mr. S. D. Ghayal, learned APP for State. 4. Facts giving rise to present application may be stated in nutshell as under: i. PSO Begumpura Police Station, Aurangabad filed chargesheet in Crime No.I34 of 2013 against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of 201 of the Indian penal Code. Applicant is an under trial prisoner. Sessions Case No.300 of 2013 arising out of said crime is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. ii. On 9th May, 2013 Accused was arrested. He moved an application Exhibit 7 under Section 330 of the Code of Criminal Proce...
Shriniwas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition illustrates the harassment suffered by a gazetted officer because of the indifferent and callous attitude and approach of the Government officials, in getting corrected his date of birth, which was wrongly recorded in his service book, without any fault on his part. 3. The petitioner was selected through MPSC as a lecturer and joined his services in the year 1984. At the relevant time, the Service Books of the Gazetted officers used to be retained by the office of the Accountant General of Maharashtra. The said practice suffered change in the year 1989 and the Service books were then transferred to the parent department from 1991 onwards. It is the specific case of the present petitioner throughout that after the service books were transferred to the parent department, the petitioner came to know that his date of birth has been wrongly rec...
Parshwanath Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd., Dhule Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. Both these writ petitions can be decided by this common order. In both these petitions respondent Nos.4 and 5 applied for allotment of plots to respondent No.1-Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short "MIDC") in 2012. In 2013 the MIDC's Land Allotment Committee considered their applications. Before the Committee could take decision, which was taken in November, 2014, the petitioner got incorporated as a company in July, 2014. Immediately thereafter the petitioner applied for a plot of land to respondent No.1 to establish an engineering unit. Respondent No.1-MIDC rejected the petitioner's application on 19.08.2014. On 10th November, 2014, the MIDC allotted plots to respondent Nos.4 and 5 as per their applications. Lease-deeds were executed on 19th January, 2015. The petitioner raised objection to such allotment and transfer, but in-vain. So, the petitioner came before this Court seeking relief mainly to get the allotment, made in favour of respondent Nos....
Mujammil @ Murgya Sabbir Mokashi Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner is assailing order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City on 26.09.2015 under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, `M.P.D.A. Act'). 3. The grounds of detention have been communicated to the petitioner on 26.09.2015. The list of offences within the period of five years and the preventive actions taken against the petitioner from time to time, are recorded in paragraph no.3 of the communication. The petitioner is stated to have been involved in nine offences during the period of preceding five years, whereas, preventive action has been taken against him in respect of two offences. 4. The representation tendered by petitioner objecting to the order of detention has been turn...
Dilip Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Accused/appellant was tried for commission of offence of murder of his wife Sonabai in Sessions Case No.57/2011 before the Court of Sessions at Nanded and has been held guilty for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. According to prosecution, accused Dilip is the husband of deceased Sonabai and they were residing together alongwith son Amol at Janta Colony, Nanded in the rented premises owned by Arunabai Mane PW2. The incident in question has occurred on 27.11.2010 at about 9.30 pm at the rented residential house of the accused. It is alleged that accused was suspecting fidelity of his wife and used to beat her. On 27.11.2010 at about 9.30 pm while deceased Sonabai was at the residence, accused came in drunken condition and started abusing her. He assaulted deceased on the count of her refusal ...
Atmaram and Another Vs. Prakash and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 24.4.2001, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge S.D (Beed) in W.C.No.1 of 2000, the original claimants preferred this appeal to the extent of quantum. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:- a] Deceased Bibhishan was working as a labourer with respondent no.1 Prakash since one year prior to his death for loading and unloading tractor bearing registration No.MH-23-3452 and trolley bearing registration No.MH-23-C-3569. On 20.9.1999 said tractor was proceeding to Beed from Kaij and on way one truck bearing registration No.AP-04-T-5121 coming from the opposite direction gave dash to the Tractor. In consequence of which, deceased Bibhishan had sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The appellants/legal representatives preferred claim before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for grant of compensation. b] Respondent No.1 Employer has not disputed ...
Imran Khan Vs. Sobiya Tabassum
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: (K.K. Sonawane, J.) 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 31st October, 2015, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Nanded, in Petition No.D-03 of 2014, rebuffing the relief of custody of minor son, namely, "Umarkhan" claimed under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1890"). 2. It is not in dispute that parties to the proceeding are governed by Mohammedan Law. The appellant - original petitioner was married with respondent on 28-03-2010 as per the Muslim rites. Appellant was in service as Headmaster in the school at Manwat. He used to travel daily from the place of his residence at Parbhani to place of avocation at Manwat. After the marriage, respondent - wife joined company of husband for cohabitation. During wedlock, she begotten one male child on 14-03-2011 from the appellant - husband. It has been alleged on behalf of respondent - wife that since marriage she was being hara...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »