Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. All the three applications are filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner from the three proceedings is the same and the same point is involved in the three proceedings and so they are being decided together. 2. The proceeding bearing Criminal Application No. 1346/2005 is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision No. 335/2004, which was pending in the Sessions Court, Jalgaon. This revision was filed against the order made in R.C.C. No. 315/2003 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as "Magistrate" for short) on Exh. 12. The C.J.M. allowed the complainant from the proceeding filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to correct the name of the accused/present petitioner from "Amol Trilokchand Shaha" to "Amol Shripal Seth". The Magistrate had already issued process against the accused when the amendment was allowed. 3. The complainant has contended that the present petitioner was Chairman of the partnershi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. This Court had heard Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, Learned A.G.P. on 15-01-2015. The following order was passed while issuing notices to the parties. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2015 passed by the Election Officer Shri S.S.Mali, by which the Objection Application dated 5.1.2015, preferred by the petitioner in regard to the provisional voters' list, has been partly allowed. 3. The petitioner is a resident of village Tandulwadi, Taluka and District Latur and is the Member of the registered respondent No.4 Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited, Tandulwadi. He is a borrower Member and is a valid voter going by the voters' list finally published on 8.1.2015. 4. The petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the ensuing elections are being conducted under the newly framed "The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014" ("the Rules of 2014"). The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The Respondent-plaintiff filed RCS No.3/2004, making a grievance about infringement of the Copy Right of its label at Annexure A to the plaint by the defendants by reproducing the same in material form and/or printing publishing or using the disputed labels. The plaintiff sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from committing the acts of infringement. The plaintiff also prayed for damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each against the defendants Nos.1 and 2, so also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff for destruction the infringed labels. The plaintiff also complained about passing of infringement of trade-mark. However, subsequently restricted its case to the extent of infringement of copyright. The trial Court initially dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed First Appeal bearing No.734/2012 before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2014, set aside the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1 This appeal is filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 9.5.2008, rendered by the Additonal Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2002 (Old S.C. No. 111 of 1994), whereby the appellant is convicted vide section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rs.5000/- i.d to suffer R.I. For six months.2 The background facts of the case are as under:- The appellant-accused Hasan Geblya Padvi, is the son of deceased Geblya Rava Padvi. The appellant has two wives namely Babibai (PW 8) and Nirmalabai (PW 4). The accused had been to village Dhanora, Taluka and District Nandurbar, a day before the date of alleged incident alongwith his wife Nirmalabai for attending the local fare. Accused Hasan was having a separate house at Dhanora. He was residing with his two wives whenever he was staying at Dhanora in that house. The appellant used to go to Gujarat State for work. The deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to undergo further S.I. for six months and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one year, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, by judgment dated 30.6.2011 in Sessions Case No.21 of 2010, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may be stated thus :- P.W.10 P.S.I. Bhagwan Dhabadge, who on 27.10.2009 was attached to Udgir city police station was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.67 of 2009, which was registered on the basis of statement of deceased Priti at Exh.64. The offence had been registered by Head Constable Dhepe. On being entrusted with the investigation of the said crime, P.W.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
V. K. Jadhav, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Aurangabad in petition No. 38 of 2001, dismissing the petition of petitioner-husband filed under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the said Act), praying therein for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. (For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties shall be referred by their status before the Family Court i.e. petitioner and respondent). 2. Brief facts, giving raise to the present appeal, are as follows:- a) The marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondentwife was solemnized on 7.6.1983 according to Hindu rites and rituals. They have a son and a daughter out of their marital wedlock. Their marriage is still subsisting. b) According to petitioner-petitioner-husband in the year 1988, respondent-wife on her own accord left the house of petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioners are functioning as Additional Government Pleaders / Additional Public Prosecutors / Assistant Government Pleaders/Assistant Public Prosecutors in the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. According to petitioners, tenure prescribed under their appointment orders has not expired and would come to an end in June 2016 and thereafter, but for the reason mentioned in the order impugned in this matter, issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 30(5) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984, (for short, Rules of 1984?), their appointment came to be terminated before completion of prescribed tenure. 3. Petitioners claim that they have been appointed in observance of the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1984 by the Respondents and Notifications, in that regard, have be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.296/2002 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.197/2005 which was pending in District Court Aurangabad. Heard both sides. 2. The suit was filed by present respondent Rameshwar for possession of some portion of the house property viz first floor and it is part and parcel of CTS No.4474/1 situated at Aurangabad. In Municipal record to this property House number is given as 4-5-20/P. It is the case of the plaintiff that under registered sale deed dated 20-10-1994 he purchased portion of 10 27 ft. from this property from the defendant for consideration of Rs.1.5 lakh. It is contended that there was structure of building having ground floor and first floor and the structure was having roof of tin. It is contended that symbolic possession of the ground floor was given at that time as one tenant was occupyi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.M. Badar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is praying for setting aside his order of termination of service and for directing the respondents to calculate his service as continuous service and to award all consequential benefits to him by holding that termination of the petitioner amounts to his release on medical ground. The petitioner is also praying for directing the respondents to give him disability pension. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, Shri L.V. Sangit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined army as a Clerk after undergoing due selection process; for a period of 16 years by executing a bond. According to the learned counsel, in the year 1989, the petitioner suffered head as well as chest pain at Jalandhar and he was admitted at the hospital for about 5 to 6 months. On 23.1.1990, the petitioner was discharged from his duty and he was sent back to home by the Army Officer. The learned co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
ORAL 1. Petitioner before this Court in both the matters is a local body constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ( hereinafter referred to as 1965 Act) while the Trade Union of its workmen are the respondents. Basic challenge in the 1992 petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to award-II dated 8/10/1987 delivered by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmadnagar in Ref.(IT) 6 of 1984 with prayer to quash relief granted in relation to demand 1,2 & 4.The reference was made by State of Maharashtra under S.12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ie IDA hereafter. Demand no. 1 is about increase in sanctioned posts on establishment schedule of the Petitioner. Demand no. 2 is to grant permanency to all those who have put in more than 180 days work with consequential benefits like pay-scales, D.A.etc & to continue to confer permanency in future on all workmen completing that period. By demand no. 4 the Union sought wages...
Tag this Judgment!