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 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. 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) 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
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 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
: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
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage. 2. The Petitioner claiming to be social worker, has filed this Petition seeking declaration that the construction of commercial complex, namely, Ranjeet Singh Market and Bindu Mangal Karyalaya on Survey No.1803 at Nanded admeasuring 51,312 Sq. Ft. carried out by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (hereafter referred as concessionaires ) is illegal and unauthorized. Petitioner wants that the Respondent Authorities should demolish the structure and the 'concession agreement' dated 30th November 2012 executed by Respondent No.4 with Concessionaires be held to be illegal and void ab initio. The Petitioner is questioning the authority of Respondent No.4 who signed the agreement as Deputy Commissioner and wants a departmental inquiry to be held against him. Petitioner has prayed that Concessionaires be black listed and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The group of these three Writ Petitions can be decided by this common judgment, in view of the fact that these three Writ Petitions arise out of the judgment and order, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Revision No. 122/B/2000/AN, dated 18.6.2001. The petitioners in all these three petitions are aggrieved by the said judgment and order, in view of the fact that the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the Revision and thereby set aside the order, passed by the Assistant Collector, Rahuri, dated 16.4.1985 in Appeal No. 13 of 1983 and directed that the petitioners be evicted from the suit land and possession of the suit land be restored to the Revision Applicants. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. In all these three Writ Petitions, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are (1) Bburao Sakharam Adik and (2) Padmakar Sakharam Adik. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed the proceedings in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.118/1996 and Regular Civil Appeal No.128/2001. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, dismissed the suit filed by the present appellants for redemption of mortgage and this decision is confirmed by the first Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed in respect of three properties like House property Gram Panchayat House No.974, Gram Panchayat House No.275 and Gram Panchayat House No. 976. These properties were subsequently given municipal numbers when the Village Panchayat was converted into Nagar Palika and corresponding numbers are given in the plaint. 3) It is the case of the plaintiffs that father of the plaintiff No.1 namely Punamchand was owner of these properties and under a deed of mortgage dated 23-4-1970 he gave the property to defendant No.1, one cooperative society. It is contended that amount of Rs.25,000/- was taken by Punamchand from defendant...
Tag this Judgment!