Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
:1. Heard Shri Milind Patil, learned Advocate, for the appellant and Shri M.M. Patil (Beedkar), learned Advocate for the Respondent. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. Plaintiff and Defendant.2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.1.1990 rendered by the learned District Judge, Osmanabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1982, thereby allowing the said appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed on 30.9.1982 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad, in Regular Civil Suit No.156 of 1978, and consequently, dismissing the said suit filed by the plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of survey No. 66/2 of village Singoli, Taluka and District Osmanabad, in all admeasuring 13 acre 4 guanthas. He obtained loan of Rs.4000/= from Maharashtra Land Development Bank, Osmanabad, by mortgaging the said survey No.66/2 with the said bank. It is further averred by the plaintiff he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
:1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/State challenging the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad in Regular Criminal Case No. 47 of 1996, thereby acquitting the accused/respondents from commission of crime U/Sec. 452, 326, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under : The complainant Gangadhar @ Bhaurao Thorat is resident of village Muddalwadi, Tq. Paithan. In the year 1991 he sold the land of his son to the son of accused No. 1 Tatyaba. At that time there was encumbrance on the said land and land was indebted to society and Land Development Bank. One Ankush Jadhav was chairman of the said Society. On 09.04.1996 in the morning said Chairman approached the complainant and informed that accused No. 1 was insisting to refund the amount to him (accused No. 1) which amount was deducted from the payment of sugarcane of accused No. 1. Chairman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard the respective advocates. 3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No.1 is the Department of Cooperation, State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is the Cooperative Bank and a Secured Creditor which has taken possession of the assets of borrower the Ghrushneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act). It then issued the tender for the sale of movable and immovable assets of the said Karkhana. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has its Regional Office at Aurangabad. The said Bank had given loan to the Ghrushneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Khatnapur, Tal. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. (Hereinafter referred to as the G.S.S.K.L.). G.S.S.K.L. went into...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2002 which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-2 Ambajogai and against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.248 of 1994 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaij, District Beed. The suit filed by the appellant/original plaintiff is dismissed by the trial Court and the first appellate court has confirmed this decision. Both the sides are heard for admission purpose. 2) It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that land Gut No.332 situated at Kekat Sarni, Tahsil Kaij, is in his possession. It is contended that the land is Devastan land belonging to Dattatraya Devasthan Ambajogai and one Yashwant Goswami was Inamdar of this land. It is contended that Yashwant had given the land to the plaintiff and his father for cultivation prior to 1950 and since then the plaintiff has been in possession of this land. It is contended that on 3-6-1992 written ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. This first appeal is admitted on 12th March, 1998. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Appellant Banks suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.27,76,137/- and for preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged property for recovery of the said amount was decreed against the borrower original defendant No.1, but was dismissed against the guarantors i.e. defendants No.2 to 6. Hence, this first appeal against the guarantors. 3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in short, is as under: That, the original defendant No.1 has availed a loan of Rs.10 (ten) lacs on 12.02.1988 and 10.03.1988 for the purposes of purchase of a truck with bore-well Rig, Machine, Screw Compressor, Drilling Rig, etc. The original defendant No.1 the borrower hypothecated the said machinery and its accessories with the plaintiff Bank. At the same time, the defendants No.2 to 6 i.e. present respondents No.2 to 6 agreed to stand as continuing guarantors for the original defendant No.1 in repaym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No. 6/1995 which was pending in the Court of Special Judge, (Additional Sessions Judge) Jalgaon. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act' for short). The maximum sentence of imprisonment of three years is given for the offence punishable under section 13 (2) of the PC Act and fine is also imposed. The substantive sentences are made to run concurrently. The application is filed by the appellant for permission to produce some record like copy of his appointment order. Both the sides are heard. 2. The original complainant Pandharinath Choudhary was a retired clerk of Municipality Jalgaon. Land admeasuring 2.85 Hectors from Gat No. 118 situated at village Paldhi was standing in the name of his wife, Durgabai Mahajan. They were in need of money and so, they wanted to sell the land....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 finally with consent. 2. Respondent No.1 (original Plaintiff hereafter referred as "Plaintiff") has filed Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2014 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Corporation Court, Aurangabad against Planning Authority Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 hereafter referred as Defendant Nos.1 and 2) and present Applicant, arrayed in the Suit as Defendant No.3 (hereafter referred as "Defendant"). The Suit filed is for suspension/cancellation of permission of construction issued by the Municipal Corporation and Assistant Director of Town Planning (Defendant Nos.1 and 2) in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 21st March 2014. The Plaintiff claimed suspension/cancellation of the permission of construction and consequential relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made in view of the permission and also has claimed perp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1.The present petition raises an issue regarding applicability of the concept of 'child in the womb' vis-a-vis the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948(here-in- after referred as 'Act, 1948').2. The Petitioner has initiated proceedings invoking section 25 of the Act, 1948, demanding the possession of the agricultural lands by filing an application bearing tenancy case No. 10 of 1981. The Tahasildar, Raver, dismissed the said application of the petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 23/06/1983, the petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred tenancy appeal bearing No. 52 of 1983, before Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. The said appeal was allowed by the sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order dated 06/09/1986. The respondents aggrieved by the same preferred revision application No.186 of 1986 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide its judgment and ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
:1) The petitioner claims to be owner of plot Survey No.5-5-38 (Old No.1919) bearing CTS No.144/53 at Kranti Chowk Aurangabad within the municipal limits of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. The plot admeasures approximately 2108 square meters. The petitioner contends that a lease of land of the subject plot was executed by him in favour of "ESSO Standard Eastern Inc.", a Corporation, which was operating in India and was dealing in business of petroleum products. The lease was executed on 1-12-1962 between the parties on rent of Rs.250/- per month. The company was running a petrol pump either itself or through some dealer. The lease agreement was to be in operative at the first instance specifically for a period of ten years. Under clause (d) of the agreement it was stipulated that on the written request of the lessee, the lessor would extend the period of lease for a further period of ten years from the expiry of the said term on the same rent. The petitioner stated that on 11-8-1972 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
:This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30th September, 1986 by the Tenancy Awalkarkun, Rahuri in Tenancy case No. 17 of 1986 and Judgment and order dated 6th July, 1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri Sub Division, Rahuri in Appeal No. TNC/Appeal/11/86 and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 7th June, 1991 in Case No. MRT.AH.X.-7/87(Tnc.B.286/87), Pune. The back ground facts for filing this Writ Petition as disclosed in the Writ Petition are as under :-The petitioners herein are the original opponents in Tenancy Case No. 17 of 1986, in a a suo- moto enquiry initiated by the Tahasildar. It is the case of the petitioners that the land Survey No. 65/1 was purchased by the petitioner No. 2 on 18th December, 1984 to the extent of 4 R of village Chinch Vihire,Tq. Rahuri. The said land was purchased for the consideration of Rs. 3,000/- by registered sale-deed and mutation entry was effected on 26th February, 1985. The said...
Tag this Judgment!