Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Government Resolutions dated 13.6.1995 and 3.7.1995 issued by the General Administrative Department i.e. respondent No.2 granting protection to the employees who have been inducted in employment prior to 15.6.1995, from termination, although the tribe certificates secured by them for availing employment have been found to be not valid. 2. Petitioner, in nut shell objects continuance of such of the employees in employment although their claim for validation of certificates are found to be unsubstantiated and the certificates obtained by them have been declared as invalid, false or fake. The petitioner by way of amendment to the petition, is also challenging the Government resolution dated 30.6.2014 extending the benefits in employment to such categories of employees. 3. Petitioner is an Advocate by profession and is rendering services for upliftment of tribes. He is President of the Tribal Rights Protection Committee, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The first proceeding is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relief to set aside the order of issue process made in Regular Criminal Case No.73/2011 is claimed and the relief of quashing of the proceeding filed as a complaint by the public servant, authority under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is claimed. The proceeding is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad and it is filed under sections 23, 25, 29 of the Act and under Rule 9(4), (6) and (8) of the The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred to as "the Rules"). Criminal Revision Application No.9/2011 was filed against the order of issue process by the petitioners in Sessions Court but the revision is dismissed by the Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Since a common issue is involved in both these matters, I have considered these petitions together. 3. The petitioner has raised an unusual, but a vital issue in the light of the Part I order of the Labour Court concluding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. Whether the evidence statement of a witness in written form before the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry, should necessarily be sworn on oath before a Notary or before a competent authority which has the power to administer an oath, is the issue. 4. In both these cases, the respondents / employees have preferred complaints before the Labour Court Aurangabad u/s 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In both these cases, the fairness of the enquiry has been conceded. However, in both these cases, the findings of the Enquiry Officer has been assailed. 5. The Labour Court permitted the litigating sides to lead ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Petition is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2012 passed by Additional Collector, Osmanabad declaring that the resolution dated 12th October, 2012 of no confidence passed against the petitioner in the meeting is valid and the Saprach i.e. the Petitioner is disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner is elected member of Village Panchayat of Khamkarwadi. He is elected for a tenure of 2010 to 2015 and he is holding the post of Sarpanch. Village Panchayat of Khamkarwadi constitutes 7 members. On 8th October, 2012 there was a requisition demanding meeting for motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch. On 9th October, 2012 Tahsildar issued notice pursuant to the requisition informing all the 7 members of the Village Panchayat that the meeting was scheduled on 12th October, 2012. Accordingly, the notices were served on 5 members of the village Panchayat. As per the case of the petitioner, it was not served on him and on the one member of the Panchayat. While...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The applicant was acquitted in Criminal Case No.401/2006 on 29.1.2009 for offence under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code. The State did not file any appeal. 3. Respondent No.2 approached the learned District Judge, canvassing the application to be under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, Respondent No.2 sought to condone delay of two years six months and 28 days, caused in preferring to file an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalna entertained Misc. Application No.72/2011 and by order dated 13.9.2012, condoned the delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicant questions legality of the same. 4. Another limb, apart from legality of condoning the delay, learned Counsel for the applicant has informed, special leave to file appeal or appeal under Section 378 or 372 proviso of Cr.P.C, could not have been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge. This is more so, the judgment be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. This is a reference made by Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for seeking answers to the following questions: (A) Whether Civil Court can regularize encroachment over forest land by declaration of ownership in contravention and avoiding bar created by Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980? (B) Whether Government Resolution dated 12.9.1979 is still good to regularise encroachment over forest land in contravention of Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980? (C) Whether Civil Suit is maintainable to protect the encroachment over forest land in contravention of Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980? 2. Genesis of this reference lies in Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2007 instituted by one Gadbad Bhavdu Sonne against his brother Ramrao Bhavdu Sonne in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Kannad for the following relief: (1) Decree for perpetual injunction permanently restraining the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
V.K. Jadhav, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner is seeking issuance of writ or order quashing and setting aside the compromise recorded below Exh.16, by the LokAdalat held on 3.3.2013 at Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.365 of 2012 and consequential Award below Exh.18 dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are as under: The Respondent no.1/original claimant had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.365/2012 in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lacs) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident on 9.4.2012 against the owner, rider and the present petitioner, who is the insurer of the said motorcycle. The Respondent No.1/original claimant was the pillion rider on the motorcycle at the time of alleged accident. According to the petitioner, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. The petitioner/employee is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22-12-2011 delivered by the School Tribunal whereby his Appeal No. 57 of 2002 has been dismissed. 3. The said Appeal was earlier dismissed by judgment and order dated 14-10-2010 which was quashed and set aside by this Court by its order dated 06-04-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 11668 of 2010. The appeal was restored on 28-04-2011 and was reheard. 4. The contentions of the petitioner in the light of the memo of admitted facts dated 28-01-2015 and oral submissions are summarised as under :- a) The petitioner has acquired the degree of Master of Arts and Bachelor of Education (M.A.B.Ed.) b) He was appointed on 15-07-1991 as a secondary school teacher. c) The petitioner and the respondent-management are covered by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (here-in-after referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. By this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [For short, hereinafter referred to as MV Act?], appellants / original claimants are challenging the judgment and award dated 3-11-2009, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in M.A.C.P. No. 138/2005, thereby rejecting claim for compensation led by appellants / original claimants on account of death of Kalyan Kothi in the alleged vehicular accident which took place on 9-9-2004 at Masrat Nagar, Beed. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the truck allegedly involved in the said accident; respondent no.2 is its insurer whereas respondent no.3 was allegedly working as driver on the said truck on the date of the accident. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to in their original capacity. 2. Brief facts leading to the institution of the present appeal can be summarized thus:- (a) Initially claimants who are dependent legal representatives of deceased Kalyan Kothi filed the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.477/1985 which was pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. First Appeal was filed by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.360/1980 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa, District Ahmednagar. The appeal is allowed by the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree of dismissal of partition suit is set aside and the relief of partition is given in favour of the plaintiff. Both the sides are heard. 2. The appeal is admitted by this Court (other Hon'ble Judge) on following substantial question of law:- "Whether the exemption from bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 - Mukinda cannot be claimed by the respondent No.1 - Babu without obtaining leave under Rule 4(iv) of Order 22 of C.P.C. in view of "Zahirul Islam vs Mohd. Usman and others...
Tag this Judgment!