Mumbai Aurangabad Court August 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.
Syed Akram Ali Vs. Rubinabegum
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned respective Counsel. 2. Present revision is questioning the judgment and order delivered by the learned Family court, Aurangabad, in Petition No.E-98 of 2008 preferred by the respondent-wife claiming maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, awarded maintenance of Rs.1,200/- p.m. to the respondent-wife w.e.f. 26th March, 2008 i.e. from the date of application. 3. The facts as are necessary for deciding the present revision application are as under : 4. The applicant claimed to have married with respondent on 6th May, 2007, which fact is not in dispute. It is then claimed that the petition No.E-98 of 2008 came to be moved by respondent-wife and Petition No.A-3-10 of 2009 filed by respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage under Section 2(2) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. 5. It is the case of applicant that on 26th May, 2008, a compromise was entered into between the parties vide compromise pursis dated 26th May, 2008. It is alleg...
Dashrath Ramlal Garandwal and Others Vs. M/s. Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. In the first petition, the Petitioners are the Workers, who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 31.03.2016 by which Complaint (ULP) No.35/2014 has been dismissed and their transfer orders dated 08.02.2014 are sustained. 3. In the second petition, the Petitioner is the Employer who has prayed for refund of the money which has been paid to the Workers by way of an interim arrangement by the order passed by this Court on 27.08.2015 in Writ Petition No.8728/2014 in between these parties. The said amount was paid to the Workers with the direction that the issue of payment of salary from the date of transfer till the decision in the complaint would be subject to the pleadings of the parties and the decision of the Industrial Court. It is, therefore, prayed by the Employer that the amount deposited and/or paid to the Workers, should be refunded to the Employer. 4. For t...
Vithalrao Sharanappa Jalde Vs. Shankarrao Manikrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Even though, this Court has marked the absence of the counsel for the applicant on 24.8.2016 and adjourned the case for today as last chance, counsel for the applicant is not present even today. Learned counsel for respondent is also absent. 2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur in Criminal Revision Application No.47/2003, the original accused has filed present Criminal Application. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows :- The respondent-original complainant had filed a criminal case bearing STCC No.814/1998 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga against the petitioner for having committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga on 27.10.1998 took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the petitioner-accused. The l...
Prajwala Bhatu Khalane and Others Vs. Mahatma Phule Vidya Prasarak San ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 4. In the first petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, delivered by the School Tribunal, by which, her Appeal No.77 of 2012 has been dismissed. 5. In the second petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, by which his Appeal No.79 of 2012 has been dismissed by the School Tribunal. 6. In the third petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, by which her Appeal No.78 of 2012 has been dismissed by the School Tribunal. 7. In all these Appeals, the petitioners were working as 'Shikshan Sevaks' and on the stroke of the completion of their probation period, all of them have been terminated. 8. The respondent / management is the same educational institution and the same college. Hence, by the consent of the parties, all these matters have been heard together. 9. For the sake of brevity, all t...
Sambhaji Babaji Sakure Vs. The Collector Ahmednagar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. Both the petitions are filed to challenge the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioners and also the order of dismissal of the appeals filed by the two petitioners to challenge the motion of no confidence. The petitioner from Writ Petition No.7896 was the village Sarpanch and the petitioner from other proceeding was the Upa-Sarpanch of the village. 2. The village Panchayat consists of 9 members and they got elected in the general election of 2015. The petitioner-Sarpanch belongs to Other Backward Class but she was elected to the post of the Sarpanch when the post of the Sarpanch was for open category. The first requisition was given by six members out of 9 members on 30-3-2016 but the Tahsildar did not call the meeting and so one more requisition was given on 11-4-2016. The Tahsildar called the meeting on the basis of the requisition dated 30-3-2016 and in that meeting no confidence motion was passed against both the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch. This decision was chal...
Ambadas Vs. Kintetic Engineering Ltd., Through it's Chairman
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.03.2013 delivered by the Labour Court by which his Complaint (ULP) No.37/2010 was dismissed. The Labour Court concluded that the punishment of dismissal from service for a proved misconduct of sleeping on duty was not shockingly disproportionate. 3. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.02.2016 delivered by the Industrial Court by which Revision (ULP) No.1/2014 filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The Petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. It is not in dispute that the part-1 judgment dated 21.04.2012 delivered by the Labour Court by which the enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were sustained, was not challenged by the Petitioner/ workman before the Industrial Court as well as before this Court. 5. The submissions of the Petitioner c...
Vithhalrao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for respective parties, heard finally. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common Judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.91 of 2014 and Criminal Revision Application No.92 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded dated 13.2.2015, the original accused in Sessions Case No.208 of 2013 has preferred these writ petitions. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petitions, are as follows: a] On the basis of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 Priya Waghmare Crime bearing No.10/2012 came to be registered at Police Station, Bhagyanagar, District Nanded for the offence punishable under section 498A, 497, 328, 294, 292, 323, 504, 506, 509, 114, 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, Police Station Bhagya Nagar has submitted charge sheet in the Court and the case is committed to the Sessions Court as offences alleged to hav...
Gaurishankar Vs. Asaram and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Civil Application is filed for recalling the order dated 23.12.2011 passed in Second Appeal No.356/2001, thereby disposing of the Second Appeal in terms of compromise arrived between the parties to the Second Appeal. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant was not aware about the filing of Second Appeal by respondent nos.2 and 3, and respondent no.1 also did not inform the applicant about the pendency of Second Appeal. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 therein filed Regular Civil Appeal No.183/1995 before the District Court, Aurangabad. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.06.1995 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.475/1994, the said Appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.06.1995 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.475/1994 was set aside. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order by the First Appellate Court, the appellant preferred Second Appeal. The Appeal was admitted. 3. It is submitted that tho...
Rahul and Others Vs. The Divisional joint Registrar, Co-operative Soci ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by Divisional Joint Registrar, Nashik Division, Nashik in appeal No. 199/2016 on 13.6.2016. In the appeal filed by present respondents, office bearers of Taklibhan Vividh Karyakari seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Tahsil Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, respondent No. 3, the learned Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Nashik had granted interim relief, stay to the operation of order made by the learned Registrar Cooperative Societies on 24.5.2016 by which learned Assistant Registrar had appointed administrator on the aforesaid Society as provided under section 77(A) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). It appears that due to stay order, the charge which was taken over by the Administrator was required to be returned back to the respondents. Office bearers represented to the Adminis...
Nuzhatunssae Begum Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Police Sta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
Oral Judgment:- 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at admission stage. 2. By way of this criminal writ petition, the petitioner/original complainant is challenging the order dated 22.7.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, below Exh.1 in R.C.C. No. 142 of 2007. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are as follows:- a) The petitioner had filed the complaint on 28.7.2005 in Nanalpeth police station, Parbhani against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 466, 467, 471 r.w.34 of I.P.C. Since the police authorities had not taken any cognizance, the petitioner was constrained to file an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for issuing directions to the police to investigate into the matter. The petitioner had also submitted documents in support of her allegations made in the complaint. Thus crime No. 1/2005 came...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »