Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1 At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and by consent, leave granted to delete prayer clause 'A' and to modify prayer clause 'B' suitably for the grant of Application for delay condonation. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.3 By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed that the impugned order dated 16.9.2009, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik be quashed and set aside, and also prayed that the Application dated 3.2.2009 preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay, be allowed.FACTUAL MATRIX :4 The petitioner herein had taken loan of Rs. 1,50,000/ from respondent no.1 on 3.12.2003, but since the petitioner herein did not repay the said loan amount and interest thereon regularly and committed de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. All these petitions involve common question of law and are based on same factual matrix, as such are decided together. 2. The petitioners are elected as councillors of Zilla Parishad, Dhule in the General Elections of 2008 having contested the said elections as belonging to Nationalist Congress Party (hereinafter called as "N.C.P." for the sake of brevity). The party position of elected councillors is as under : 1. Indian National Congress : 21 2. Nationalist Congress Party : 08 3. Shiv Sena : 14 4. Bhartiya Janta Party : 09 5. Independent : 03 Total : 55 3. After the declaration of the result, the Returning Officer called special meeting for the election of the President and Vice President of Zilla Parishad Dhule to be held on 30th December, 2008 at 3.00 p.m. In the said special meeting one Sudhir Sudhakar Jadhav representing Shiv Sena party was elected as President and Bharat Nanabhau Ise representing Bhartiya Janta Party was elected as Vice President. The petitioners cast vote to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1) Admit. 2) Notice after admission made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard all the sides. 3) The appeal is filed against judgment and order of WCFA No.5/2010 which was pending before the Ex-officio Commissioner for Employee's Compensation at Parbhani (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani, working as Exofficial Commissioner). In the proceeding filed by the present appellants for compensation in respect of the death of their son, Laxman, compensation of Rs.3,29,925/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum is granted and a direction is also given to pay penalty of Rs.1,64,963/- to the present appellants. However, this order is made only against respondent No.1, the employer of the deceased and as the order is not made against respondent No.2, Insurance Company, the decision is challenged. 4) The accident took place in the premises of Agricultural Produce Market Basmat where the deceased was doing work of loading cotton bales in truck. Deceased came under the cotton bales, susta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. These matters were heard on 15.7.2015 and thereafter on 29.7.2015. 5. All the petitioners claim to be the employees of the same respondent / management. All of them have been orally terminated on 15.7.2008. They are identically situated and the issue involved is identical. Respondent / management is the same. It is in these circumstances that I have heard these petitions together. 6. The contentions of the petitioners can be summarized as follows:- (a) In 1991, the respondent Management has started the Secondary School at Padalane, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. The school was recognized on non grant basis. (b) In 1995, the respondent Management had transferred respondent No. 3 School from village Padalane to village Kotul without prior permission of respondent No.4. (c) Respondent No.4 had cancelled the recognition of the School since the Management had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.37/2012 and Criminal Appeal No.501/2012 have been filed by the appellants (original accused), challenging the Judgment and Order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar in Sessions Case No.06/2009, thereby convicting the appellants /original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous Life Imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The appellants / accused are further convicted under Section 324 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of RS.500/each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each. The appellants are further convicted under section 147 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and each of them is sentenced to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Common Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondents in both petitions. None appeared for the second respondent though served. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally. 3. Both of these Writ Petitions are arising out of the common orders passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ["MACT", for short], Shahada, whereby the request of the petitioner [hereinafter called as "Insurer"], seeking permission to cross examine the above-named first respondents (i.e. the claimants) and their witnesses, came to be rejected. 4. The claimants, who got injured in the same incident that took place on 29.12.2009 at about 10.30 p.m., near village Korit on Nandurbar to Shahada road, filed Claim Petition Nos. 121/2010 and 122/2010, respectively, for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/-, respectively, vide Section 166 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. All the applications are filed under section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail granted to respondents - accused in C.R. No. 163/2011 registered in Ambajogai City Police Station for offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 149 etc. of Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. Papers of investigation were made available. The State has supported the applications. Both the sides have filed affidavits in support of their rival contentions. 2. The papers of investigation show that the incident took place on 23.10.2011 at about 7.15 p.m. in the office of deceased Megharaj. The complainant Satish is the husband of a sister of Megharaj. The complainant is a resident of Ambajogai and he is working as an advocate. The office of deceased is situated in Ambajogai. At about 6.30 p.m. Megharaj called complainant to the office and so the complainant went to the office and they were having talk in the office from 6.30 p.m. onwards. 3. Accused Bibhishan Chate is a res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 35/2009, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The appeal challenging the order made by J.M.F.C., Bhoom in Criminal Mis. Application No. 141/2008 filed under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred as the "Act" for short] is allowed by the Sessions Court. The protection order and maintenance order made by J.M.F.C. in favour of the petitioner are set aside by Sessions Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the second wife of respondent. She cohabited with respondent for 4-5 years after the marriage in his house, where he was living with first wife. It is her case that the respondent and his first wife drove her out of the matrimonial house on 1.11.2007 after giving severe ill-tre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1) Heard. Admit. Heard finally. In this group of appeals, respective appellants, i.e. either the claimants or the insurance companies have questioned legality of multiplier fixed by the respective Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2) Facts in each of the appeals are at variance to a larger extent, but, since common question of law, referred to above, is involved, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. FIRST APPEAL NO.1611/2013(MACP NO.44/2009). 3) Smt. Syeda Aleemunbee, sought compensation for death of Syed Shabbir. An amount of Rs.6,21,500/with interest @ 9% was awarded on 22.09.2011. Same is challenged by the appellant/insurance company on the ground of quantum. The appellant/insurance company feels that age of parents of the deceased at the time of accident was in the age-group of 40-45 years. The trial court should have applied multiplier of 15 and it should have deducted half of the amount towards personal expenses a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is the accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 172/2010, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad. There are three other accused in the said case, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC, and 498A of the IPC, read with Sections 107 of the IPC and 34 of the IPC. The trial is in progress. After one witness for the defence had been examined, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit 73) praying that two witnesses, whose evidence, according to him, was necessary for a just decision of the case, be summoned by the Court as per the powers vested in it, by Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"]. This application was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor in-charge of the matter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated 20-12-2013, re...
Tag this Judgment!