Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Reported in : 2009(3)BCR(Cri)258; 2009ALLMR(CRI)2883; 2010CriLJ205(NOC)
V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.1. These are applications filed U/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking directions that in the event of arrest, the applicants may be released on bail.2. The incident giving rise to the applications is said to have occurred between 30.6.2009 and 1.7.2009. It appears that one Purshottam Patel, a contractor, had lodged a report against Dr.Uttam Dhana Mahajan, pertaining to alleged defrauding in respect of certain amounts which were payable to him. It was alleged by said complainant Purshottam that he was duped and cheated by said Dr. Uttam Mahajan. In pursuance to the said complaint, applicant No.1 Manoj, who was then the Additional Superintendent of Police at Chalisgaon, called Dr. Uttam Mahajan, in his office around 10/10-30 a.m. on 30.6.2009. The applicant Manoj deputed PSI Nimbalkar to call said Dr. Uttam Mahajan. Allegedly, Dr. Uttam Mahajan is member of Congress Party and was about to proceed to attend some rally or function at Nasik along with some other co-workers. He was...
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. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission.3. By the present Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prayed that the impugned order dated 23 April, 2010 passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary (Appeals & Hearing), Home Department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Appeal No.EXT2010/39/VS5, thereby confirming the order dated 24th December, 2009 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. SubDivisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar vide externment order No. EX/SR/2/2009 be quashed and set aside.FACTUAL MATRIX :4. It is the contention of petitioner that he is resident of Kopargaon, Tq.Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar and was issued notice dated 15th April, 2009 by the SubDivisional Police Officer, Kopargaon, Camp Shirdi, to remove himself from the boundar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1 The appellant (original complainant) has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.3.2007, rd rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna in S.T.C. No. 1326 of 2006 acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and prayed for quashment thereof.2 In nut shell, the complainant's case is that there were cordial/friendly relations between the complainant and the accused and at the request of the accused, the complainant gave hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/ to the accused on 7.6.2005 for relieving the tractor and also towards his financial difficulties. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused did not repay the said loan within the period of one year in spite of making repeated requests. However, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 0489970 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Tembhurni on 4.4.2006 for Rs.2,50,000/. The complainant presented the said cheque for encas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Challenge in this petition is to judgement and order rendered by learned Incharge President of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (M.R.T.) in exercise of appellate jurisdiction (Case No. 27/A92-J). By that judgement, the appeal preferred by the respondents has been allowed and the application filed by the petitioner for eviction under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, "the HT&AL; Act") came to be rejected.2. Indisputably, father of the petitioner, namely, Sayaji Shelke was the protected tenant in respect of agricultural land Survey No. 52, admeasuring 9 acres 18 gunthas, situated at village Gokul under Bhokardan Tahsil. It is also an admitted fact that father of the respondent No. 1, namely, deceased Mohan alias Mohiniraj Deshpande was the landlord. The name of deceased Sayaji Shelke was recorded in the revenue record vide the relevant orders. A final declaration under the HT&AL; Act was made in his favour. He was found in possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. By the present criminal application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants had initially prayed to quash and set aside the FIR in CR No.56/2010 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal, vide prayer clause "B". It appears that during the pendecy of the application, the application suffered amendment and by prayer clause No.BB, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR and further proceedings of CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon.2. Record shows that vide order dated 08.12.2006, Rule came to be issued along with ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause "BBB".3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. Also perused the charge sheets submitted in connection with CR No.56/2006 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal so also in connection with CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. 4. In this application, in response to the notice, State has filed an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2) By the present petition, filed by the petitioner/husband (original Opponent), under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, prayed to quash and set aside the Judgment and order dated 1.1.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions, Sangamner, in Criminal Revision Application No.7/2007, thereby granting maintenance of Rs.600/ per month to the respondent/wife herein (original applicant) from 12.7.2005.FACTUAL MATRIX :3) The petitioner herein married with the respondent on 22nd January, 1980 as per the Hindu religious rites since his earlier wife, viz. Kesarbai had expired. However, it is alleged that since the petitioner herein refused and neglected to maintain the respondent/wife, the respondent/wife filed an application, being Criminal Misc. Application No.335/2005 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner on 12.7.2005 and copy thereof. is produced at E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. This appeal is filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 28.11.2008, passed by the Additonal Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case. No. 76 of 2008, by which the appellant-accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo further S.I. for two months.2 .The brief facts of the case are as under:- One Sunita Pawar, PW 1, daughter-in-law of Vitthal Pawar (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'deceased") resides at Tirupatinagar, Dhanegaon alongwith her family members i.e. her husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law. The appellant (accused) Charansingh resides near house of PW 1 Sunita. Accused owns a auto rickshaw. At the time of Dasara festival, Ankush, brother- in-law of PW 1 Sunita, had taken the Auto Rickshaw of accused for plying. While running the said Rickshaw by Ankush, the rickshaw met with an accident and it got damaged. Accused had deman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appellant, in this appeal, challenges the Judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.8/2008. The appellant, has been convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. This Judgment and order of conviction, is passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar on October 18, 2008.2. The facts in brief, necessary for consideration of submissions on behalf of the parties, are listed herein below :- (a) The appellant was the original accused. The appellant, is resident of Wadarwadi, Shevgaon District Ahmednagar. The appellant was married to Sangita approximately five years before the incident. The appellant and his wife Sangita were blessed with two children. Gaurav, was around four years old, whereas Aishwarya was ...
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!