Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court. 5. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court. 5. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Top of Form 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 Present criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 8-6-2007 below exh. 17 in Sessions Case no. 53/2006 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Osmanabad. 3 Such of the facts as are necessary for adjudication of this criminal revision application can be summarised as under : . Respondent no. 2 herein lodged report on 4-6-2005 in Shiradhon police station, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad alleging that in the afternoon of 4-6-2005 at about 3.30 pm one Gopinath Dnyanoba Patil and Dharma Vitthal Pande assaulted his son with fists and kick blows. On the basis of this report, non-cognizable offence was recorded vide entry no. 16/2005 for offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that again on 8-6-2005 one more report was filed by respondent no. 2 in the same police station alleging the incident date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Considering the conspectus of this matter, I had requested the learned Advocates practising Labour Laws to assist the Court. Accordingly, S/Shri T.K. Prabhakaran, V.R. Mundada, S.V. Dankh, Avishkar Shelke, P.V. Barde and Y.R. Marlapalle, learned Advocates have rendered their assistance in this matter. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.7.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur, by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been allowed (in fact partly) and they have been directed to address the Labour Court in the pending Criminal Complaint No.6/2011 filed u/s 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as to why process should not be issued against them. 4. By this petition and considering the contentions of the respondents, an issue has been raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts for filing this Petition are as under:- On 29.04.2010, the plot no.1 out of survey no.86/2 situated at Ahmedpur was purchased by the petitioner and the complainant- Shivkant Lasune. On 24.05.2010, one Gundappa Vishwanath Nijwante had challenged the said sale-deed in Regular Civil Suit No.03/2010 and has prayed for the declaration of ownership and injunction. The said Regular Civil Suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur. During pendency of the said suit, the complainant - Shivkant Lasune has sold his interest in the said property in favour of the petitioner and executed an agreement of sale on receipt of Rs. 21,000/- on 20.01.2012. The petitioner has constructed 15 tin sheds in plot no.1. On 23.08.2012, the Municipal Council, Ahmedpur has issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner for getting electric ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (husband) against the respondents (wife and son) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prayed that the judgment and order, dated 5th August, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.40 of 2009, arising out of the judgment and order, dated 15th January, 2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahuri in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.459 of 2004, be quashed and set aside. 3. Respondent no.1 herein filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.729 of 1999 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahuri, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance for herself ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment : 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3] This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting that S.C.C. No. 1487 of 2012, pending before the learned 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Latur. 4] The applicant herein is the father of the respondent. It is the contention of the applicant that R.C.S. No. 61 of 2008 was filed by the elder son of the present applicant for partition and separate possession before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakur, Distict Latur. Accordingly, the said suit was compromised inter se between the parties, to which present applicant and the respondent were parties. A copy of R.C.S. No. 61 of 2008 and the copy of the compromi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment : 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3] This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting that S.C.C. No. 1487 of 2012, pending before the learned 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Latur. 4] The applicant herein is the father of the respondent. It is the contention of the applicant that R.C.S. No. 61 of 2008 was filed by the elder son of the present applicant for partition and separate possession before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakur, Distict Latur. Accordingly, the said suit was compromised inter se between the parties, to which present applicant and the respondent were parties. A copy of R.C.S. No. 61 of 2008 and the copy of the compromi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent nos.3 and 4 absent, although served. 2. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original respondent no.1) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and under Sections 482 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that judgment and order dated 24-3-2004, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Rahuri, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 365/2002, and the judgment and order dated 9-9-2004, rendered by the learned 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 130/2004, be quashed and set aside by issuance of writ of certiorari. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner herein, namely, Bhausaheb, and respondent no.3, Rambhau, and respondent no.4, Bharat, are sons of respondent no.1, Laxman, and respondent no.2, Smt. Gayabai. The respondent nos.1 and 2, namely, Laxman and Smt. Gayabai i.e. parents of petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4 herein, filed an applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State finally. 2. In this matter, the respondent No.1- complainant filed R.C.C. No.239/2012 against the present applicants (original accused Nos.1 and 3). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon did not issue process against accused No.2 Mrs. Trivenidevi observing that her contribution behind this offence is not well founded and she could not be arrayed as accused. Against the order of issue of process against applicants, the present application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants is relying on the case of National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 488. He submits that, perusal of the complaint shows that the accused persons were not residents of the local jurisdiction of the Court and in view of the amendment to Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), it was incumbent ...
Tag this Judgment!