Mumbai Aurangabad Court June 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.
Titan Industries Limited and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner has challenged the continuance of the proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.515 of 2005 pending in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. It is stated that the State had made the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 applicable to the petitioner. 2. It is pointed out that this Court by its order dated 06.09.2005 had passed the following order while granting interim relief:- "1) Heard Shri. P.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the interim order passed by this Court (Bombay Bench) in Writ Petition No.1848/2002 dated 22nd July 2002. 3) Considering all these facts, Notice. 4) Shri. D.V. Tele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appears for all the respondents, wavies notice and seeks time to take instructions and file Reply. 5) Stand over for six weeks. 6) In the meanwhile, inte...
Nandkumar Vs. Girish and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 890/2000 (Old Special Civil Suit No. 67/1995), which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 9/2005, which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Ahmednagar. The previous number of the suit was Special Civil Suit No. 67/1995. Present proceeding is filed by original defendant No. 1 and the first appeal was also filed by the present appellant. There are concurrent findings in favour of respondent - Girish Madan. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows :- The suit was filed by respondent - Girish Madan for relief of partition and separate possession of his share from property bearing C.T.S. No. 3349, having area of 181.4 Sq. Mtrs. situated in Ahmednagar city. The property is given Municipal House No. 2542 for assessment purpose by the Local Body. It is the case...
Shah Faruq Shabir and Others Vs. Govindrao Ramu Vasave and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the writ petition, by an order dated 23.01.2012, was pleased to formulate following two issues for consideration of the larger Bench: I. Whether the term aghadi or front as defined U/Sec. 2(a) of the Disqualification Act of 1986 would mean the party or aghadi on whose candidature the councillor is elected or would also include the aghadi of two or more municipal parties coming into existence after the elections are held? II. Whether the term original political party or aghadi appearing in Sec. 5 would mean the party at its National level or would mean a municipal party? 2. We have heard arguments advanced by Shri P.M.Shah, learned Senior Counsel i/by Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate for petitioners, Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned advocate for Respondent No.1, Shri Umakant P. Giri, learned advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr.A.B. Girase, learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.3. 3. The facts in nutshell, giving rise to the referenc...
Prashant Kashinath Zaware Vs. Rubal Gupta (Agrawal) and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
Per Court 1. The Applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.10.2013 delivered by the learned Additional Session Judge, Ahmednagar by which Criminal Revision Application No.119 of 2013 has been partly allowed. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) has been interfered into by the Revisional Court to the extent of accused Nos.7 to 9 who are Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the Revisional Court, on the misconception that a sanction for prosecuting the said accused under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was mandated even at the pre-investigation stage. 3. I have heard the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents. With their assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Kumar and other Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and another, (2013) 10 SCC 705 has concluded that sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prev...
Jagdish Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Incharge Police Inspecto ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
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. This matter was heard at length on 15.6.2016 and 16.6.2016. On 16.6.2016, this Court has passed the following order:- 1. The order of issuance of process of the learned Magistrate is on the basis of taking cognizance of a complaint u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by invoking its powers u/s 190(1)(a). By the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dated 01/08/2015, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21/08/2014 has been quashed and set aside primarily on the ground that Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was not complied with as there was no recording of verification of the complainant. 2. In this backdrop, it is necessary to peruse the record. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he would apply for a certified copy of the verification of the petitioner as has been recorded by the lear...
Vishal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and Respondents at length. 3. A peculiar situation has emerged in this case in the light of the submissions of the learned Advocates which are said to be on the basis of the record in this petition and from Criminal Application No.5229/2014, which has been dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court (Coram : S.S. Shinde and A.I.S.Cheema, JJ.) by order dated 30.10.2014. 4. The Petitioner in this petition has specifically challenged the order of issuance of process dated 08.10.2013 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of Regular Criminal Case No.253/2013 and by a short order of a single paragraph has held that an offence punishable under Sections 193, 417, 418 and 420 of the IPC has been made out. 5. The Petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.4/2014 under Section 397 of the Code of Crimina...
Vimalbai Supdu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Ministry of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Santigrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of rejection of her claim for family pension made upon the death of her son namely Deelip Supdu Patil in harness. 3. The son of the petitioner was serving as a Gram Sevak since 3rd April, 1984. He was the permanent employee of respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and Panchayat Samiti, Amalner, respectively. He died on 29th January, 2007 in harness. The petitioner is the only Class I legal heir of her son. Accordingly she obtained heirship certificate from the Tahsildar on 21st March, 2007. On the basis of that certificate she was paid an amount of Rs.1,41,450/- towards gratuity vide order dated 30th September, 2008. Being the only legal heir of her deceased son and being wholly depending on him for livelihood, the petitioner claimed family pension. However, her claim for family pension came...
Parbhani District Central Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2013 by which Miscellaneous Application No.1/2013, filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in preferring an appeal, has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. 3. The Petitioner contends that pursuant to the complaint filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Regular Criminal Case No.68/1999 was adjudicated upon by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamnuri. By the judgment and order dated 23.02.2011, Respondent No.2/ Accused was acquitted of the offences. 4. The grievance is that pursuant to the said judgment, the State did not prefer an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Hingoli. After the Petitioner got the knowledge of the judgment, it had approached ...
Shankar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.V. Nirgude, J.) 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 30.1.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.271 of 2013 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause. The appellant was acquitted of the offence publishable under section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. The appellant and co-accused Sharad were tried in the said sessions Case for the offences punishable under section 307 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 3. It was alleged that on 2.5.2013, the accused took Ramdas to his agricultural field, where both of them assaulted him. The accused No.1 then took out a revolver and fir...
Sk. Bashir Sk. Shabhir and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The complainants and the accused, who have been convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, have placed on record a joint compromise document dated 14.6.2016 for compounding of the offence, along with the affidavits of the concerned persons. 2. It is jointly submitted by the learned Advocates for the appellants and the complainants that though the offence held to have been committed is not a compoundable offence, this Court could exercise it's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Pepsi Foods Limited and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others [AIR 1998 SC 128] and the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court (3 Judges Bench) in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. 3. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »