Mumbai Aurangabad Court May 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.
Magasvargiya Shikshan Sanstha and Another Vs. Bhausaheb Sonaji Kakade ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
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. A vital issue emerges in this petition:- "Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ( MEPS Rules for short), issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?" 5. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I had invited the learned Advocates practicing in service law to render their assistance in this matter. I have thus heard the learned Advocates for the litigating sides, as well as, those learned Advocates. 6. The petitioner / management has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015, delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No. 5 of 2013, filed by the appellant / employee Respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed an...
Karansing Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Govt. Ple ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner of land bearing gat no.12 admeasuring 1 H 62 R situated at village Ramrai, Tq. Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad which he has purchased from respondent no.7 for valuable consideration of Rs.20 lakh vide registered sale deed executed on 22/1/2010(which is hereinafter referred as said land). The vendor of the petitioner i.e. the respondent no.7 had purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 11/1/1982. Immediately after the purchase of said land, the name of respondent no.7 was duly recorded in the revenue record. Since after purchase of said land, the respondent no.7 was in physical possession and cultivating the land. He had also obtained loan of Rs.1 lakh from Prerana Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad which was repaid in the year 2006 by providing the same as colateral security for the loan. Since respon...
Bhaurao Chavan Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. These petitions assail the Fair and Remunerative Price (hereafter referred as the "F.R.P." for the sake of brevity) fixed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The challenge to the said F.R.P. is based on similar grounds, as such to avoid rigmarole, all these petitions are decided by common judgment. 2. Mr. P. M. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. D. Hon, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. D. Salunke, Mr. P. R. Patil, Mr. M. S. Deshmukh and Mr. M. V. Nagargoje, the learned counsel have canvassed their submissions on behalf of respective petitioners. The contour of their submissions can be summed up as under: A. T he Central Government is empowered to fix the minimum price of sugar cane from time to time under Rule 3 of the Sugar Cane Control Order, 1966 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as the "Control Order 1966"). The respondents have not adhered to clause (d) and (e) of Rule 3 of the Control Order 1966. Sub clause...
Vicky Dilip Mutha and Others Vs. The Panjarapol Sanstha
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has claimed reliefs as follows:- B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and or direction and quash and set aside the order dt. 26.08.2011 passed below Exh.1, order dt. 27.06.2012 passed below Exh.12 and the order dt.04.03.2013 passed below Exh.24 and be further pleased to allow the said applications. C. Issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ and or direction and call for the record and proceedings of application no.35/2011, under Section 36 of Bombay Public Trust Act, pending on the file of the Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, and on perusal of the same or otherwise quash and set aside the order dt. 24.06.2014 passed below Exh.-45, and be further pleased to open and finalise the tenders as per the notice dt. 30.0...
Parmeshwar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. In these Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of order dated 30.11.2015 passed by respondent no.1 Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, ordering suspension of petitioners. 4. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12410/2015 that the petitioner is working in the Zilla Parishad, Nanded, as a Block Education Officer. The petitioner was directed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded to enquire into the complaint against the office bearers of Shri Sant Shiromani Manmath Swami Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tehranagar, Nanded. Therefore, the petitioner was directed by the Education Officer [Primary] to cause enquiry into such complaint. 5. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11790/2015 that he is working in the Zilla Parishad Nanded w.e.f. 1999, presently he is promoted to the post of Extension Officer [Educat...
Santosh Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary for School ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while taking education, he constantly practised Indian Origin Sport known as Atyapatya . The petitioner has acquired mastery in the said sport. He also received participation certificate for the years 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 at State level and for the year 2012-2013 at National level, and secured second place in the said sport. All these sport competitions in respect of Atyapatya were held by Atyapatya Federation of India which is affiliated to All India Olympic Association. In order to promote sports in the State of Maharashtra and more particularly, Indian Origin Sports, the Government of Maharashtra has taken a policy decision to reserve 5% of posts in jobs for sports persons by issuing Government Resolution dated 30.04.2005. An object to be achieved by the said ...
Jyoti Pratapsingh Chadel and Others Vs. Collector, Nanded and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioners question propriety, legality and validity of order passed by respondent No.1 - Collector, Nanded dated 31-01-2015 in the case bearing No.2013/MCA/K1/T1/CR-34, invoking provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "MLAMD Act"), whereunder petitioners have been held to be disqualified to continue as councillors for the remainder of the term of Mahur Nagar Panchayat (hereinafter, 'MNP'). 2. General elections to seventeen-members Nagar Panchayat of Mahur were held on 11-12-2011. In said elections to MNP, petitioners among others, were set up as candidates of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). About eight candidates of NCP were declared elected as councillors of MNP on 12-12-2011. Party wise strength of seventeen-member MNP had been as under: Congress (I) 04 Shiv Sena 04 NCP 08 Independent 01 3. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it appears to be a case, wherein, post-po...
Sanjay Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for the respondent State. 2. This Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad [for short MAT ] in Original Application No.323 of 2015, and also the order dated 30th May, 2015 passed by respondent no.2 [Exhibit-A]. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent no. 2 to effect the petitioner s mid-tenure transfer from Jalgaon District and / or the Nashik Range is totally in violation and disregard of the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 22N (1) of the Maharashtra Police [Amendment and Continuance] Act, 2014. It is submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is before completion of normal tenure in the Nashik Range and the said transfer is contrary to the policy of the State Government reflected in the Circular dated 18th March, 2015...
M/s. Umedmal Bhikulal Vs. Saibaba Trading Company, Through its Prop. S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard counsel for the applicant - original complainant and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2/ State. In this matter, this Court earlier issued notice to the respondent No.1 original accused. However, now it is noticed that, in the trial Court, the complaint came to be dismissed even before the process was issued. At the stage of issue of process, the procedure does not contemplate hearing the accused. As such, it is not necessary to further pursue this matter for service of notice on the respondent No.1 - original accused. The limited question is, whether opportunity should have been given to the complainant to record his verification. The question of issue of process is to be considered under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not yet reached because Section 256 provides that, if summons has been issued on complaint and thereafter complainant remains absent, the Magistrate would have discretio...
Vivek Balkrishna Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of reservation of sportsmen category. MPSC had issued an advertisement for the posts of clerk-cum-typist, providing reservation of sportsmen category to some of the posts. The petitioner, being eligible for reservation of sportsmen, submitted an application claiming reservation of sportsmen category, in response to the said advertisement. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that after following due process of selection, the petitioner was selected as against a post reserved for sportsmen category. In view of the selection of the petitioner as against a post reserved for sportsmen category, his claim of sportsmen category was referred by respondent no.3 to the office of respondent no. 2 for verification. It is the case of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »