Mumbai Aurangabad Court September 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.
Rajmal Namdeo Bhagwat and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
1. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to challenge the order made by the learned Additional District Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute Application No. 31/2016 which was filed by present respondent No. 3 under the provision of section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Both the sides are heard. 2. The petitioners were elected to Village Panchayat Londhri (Bk), Tahsil Jamner, District Jalgaon in general elections of Village Panchayat held in the year 2015. They had contested the elections from reserved category. Along with the nomination forms, they had filed their caste certificates, but within six months from the date of elections, they did not file the caste validity certificate and so, a person from the same village had filed aforesaid dispute for seeking disqualification of the present petitioners. Notices were given to the present petitioners. They filed their reply and they cont...
Sharad and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspect ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Criminal Application is filed taking exception to the First Information Report bearing Crime No.I-344/2015 registered with the Pathardi Police Station, Pathardi, District Ahmednagar on 28.10.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Respondent no.2, who is the informant, filed First Information Report (for short FIR ) stating therein that her marriage was performed with applicant no.1 Sharad on 23rd February, 2015. Initially, she was treated well, however, thereafter applicant nos. 1 to 3 started ill-treating her and asked her to bring Rs.15 lacs from her parents and maternal uncle for construction of Hospital at Ahmednagar. It is further stated that the applicants, on not fulfilling the demand, started abusing and assaulting respondent no.2 and also suspecting her chastity. The other relatives i.e. appl...
Suresh and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through P.S. City Chowk an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Both the Criminal Applications take exception to the chargesheet bearing Regular Criminal Case No.35/2016, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, arising out of FIR bearing Crime M-Case No.I-212/2015 dated 29th July, 2015, registered at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 408, 467, 471 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66A and 67 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (for short MPT Act ), therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed of by common judgment and order. 2. According to the applicants, it is alleged in the FIR that the applicants in collusion purchased the land at village Satara in Gat No.243, admeasuring 11 Hector for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The amount was collected by them by way of membership contribution of Rs.5,000/- each from the members of Vasantrao Naik Institute for Tribal Development. The land purchased is in the name of Rural ...
Santosh Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Home Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard, finally. 2. By way of this criminal application, the applicant is challenging the order passed below Exh.1 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 83 of 2012 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Kopargaon which is now registered as R.T.C. No. 121 of 2012 thereby issuing process against the applicant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of I.P.C. and the judgment and order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 2013, by which the order of issue process passed by the Magistrate, is confirmed. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:- a) The applicant is working as police constable posted at police station Kopargaon since 2011. Respondent No.2 came to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 65 of 2012 and after his arrest, he was produced before the J.M.F.C. Kopargaon. Respondent No.2 has filed complaint before...
Dr. Sai Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. Petitioner herein has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of RCS NO. 265/2015 pending on the file of CJM, Nanded, on the grounds set out in detail in the petition. 3. Petitioner herein claims to be Doctor by profession and practices at Nanded. She possesses the educational qualification as MBBS and DGO. Petitioner started her practice at Nanded since August 2013. She has installed Sonography machine in her Hospital known as Suyog Hospital at Nanded. She claims that, the Sonography centre established by her is duly registered with the Health Department and the certificate of registration is valid for the period 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2018. 4. On 26.2.2015, the members of the Regional Vigilance Squad, Aurangabad, inspected the Ultrasonography Centre of the petitioner and r...
Babasaheb Eknath Wakchaure and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Wadane, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners have challenged the award dated 10.3.1977 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer respondent no.3 by which the land of the petitioners bearing Survey No.112/3 (Gut No.463) admeasuring 5 Acres 4 Gunthas has been acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of project affected persons. The petitioners have challenged the award mainly on the two grounds that the physical possession of the land has not been taken from the petitioners and no compensation of the acquired land has been paid to them. 3. Initially the above mentioned properties were recorded in the name of grandfather of the petitioners and after his death, the properties are succeeded by the petitioners and name of one Haribhau, eldest cousin brother of the petitioners, has been recorded as per the mu...
Balkrishna Vs. Azmat Khan and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner, who is original defendant No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2011, has impugned the order dated 2nd December, 2011, passed below application (Exh-34) by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (Corporation Court), Aurangabad, allowing the said application and appointing the City Survey Officer, Aurangabad as Court Commissioner for taking measurement of the disputed property and submitting the report. 3. Admittedly, plot No. 13 C.T.S. No. 18152 in Friends Cooperative Housing Society, Kokanwadi, Aurangabad, is owned by respondent No. 1 while plot No. 12 C.T.S. No. 18151, situate in the same Society to the East of plot No. 13 is owned by the petitioner. The above numbered suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 seeking possession of 97.99 square meters of land alleged to have been encroached upon by the petitioner from plot No. 13. 4. Respondent No. 1 f...
Balkrishna Vs. Azmat Khan
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
1. Original defendant No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2011 has taken exception to the common order dated 5th March, 2012, passed below applications Exh-51 and Exh-55 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (Corporation Court), Aurangabad, whereby he rejected the said applications. 2. The applicant is the owner of plot No. 12, C.T.S. No. 18151, situate in Friends Cooperative Society, Kokanwadi, Aurangabad, which has been purchased by him from one Narayan T. Jape. To the west of that plot, there is plot No. 13, C.T.S. No. 18152 in the same Cooperative Housing Society, which is owned by respondent No. 1 (the original plaintiff). Plot No.13 has been purchased by respondent No. 1 from one Vimalbai Kulkarni. 3. The case of the applicant, as disclosed from the application (Exh.51), is that Vimalbai Kulkarni had filed Dispute No. 367 of 2000 before the Co-operative Court, Aurangabad against the Friends Cooperative Society and Narayan T. Jape, claiming possession of 110 square meters ...
Adarsh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 28.6.2006, passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Court No.3, Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"), the applicant original accused, has preferred this criminal application. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are as follows:- a) Respondent No.2, a public limited company, has filed a complaint against present applicant for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate has recorded verification statement of respondent No.2 and pleased to pass order below Exh.1 of issuance of process against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. Hence, this criminal application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it has alleged in the complaint that the Head Office of respondent No.2 complainant is si...
Suresh Arvind Shephard Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner/ Employee is aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.04.2015 by which the Labour Court has dismissed Application (IDA) No.2/2012 filed by him under Section 33C(2) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. I have heard the strenuous submissions of Shri Barde and Shri Malte, learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondent, respectively. 4. There is no dispute in between the parties on the following aspects:- (a) On 17.10.2006, the Petitioner was discharging his duties as a Driver and met with an accident. (b) Since he was unable to resume duties, he availed 352 days leave. (c) The Respondent paid Rs.1,33,062/- towards Disablement Leave Salary for 352 days. (d) The above said payment was made under the Service Regulation 50 and Rule A(vii)(a) and (b) under the 17th Schedule of the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005. (e) The Petitioner filed Applicatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »