Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Oct-27-2016
K. L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.2, dated 5th September, 2013 along with public notice dated 24.02.2015 and the proceedings of advertisement No. 12/2014 by which respondent No.2 has fixed tariff. The petitioner has further challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 in Case No. 95/2013, dated 25.06.2015 by way of amendment in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is a consumer of respondent No.3-Company. Respondent No.2 is a Regulatory Commission established under the Electricity Act, 2003. It has power to fix tariff and is expected to be a watchdog of interest of the consumers and function transparently. 5. According to the petitioner, on 16.08.2012, respondent No.2 settled the tariff w.e.f. 1st August, 2012 in case No.19/2012. As per provisions of Electricity Act, respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Oct-27-2016
1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging two orders both of the date 23rd February, 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nandurbar in Civil Appeal No.17/2011. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the present appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar in Special Civil Suit No.13/2007. The aforesaid civil suit was filed by the present respondent, seeking partition and possession. Relief of permanent injunction was also sought. The learned Trial Court decreed the said suit partly and held the plaintiff and defendant therein entitled for half share each in the suit land and the suit house. 3. The civil suit filed by present respondent was resisted by the present appellant on several grounds. It was the contention of the appellant that the partition was already effected in respect of the suit properties in the year 1962. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 28.6.2006, passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Court No.3, Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"), the applicant original accused, has preferred this criminal application. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are as follows:- a) Respondent No.2, a public limited company, has filed a complaint against present applicant for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate has recorded verification statement of respondent No.2 and pleased to pass order below Exh.1 of issuance of process against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. Hence, this criminal application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it has alleged in the complaint that the Head Office of respondent No.2 complainant is si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-25-2016
1. Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2015 has been filed by the Appellant original accused who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Special Child Case No.1 of 2013 on 29th April 2015 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act" in brief) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year. The trial Court directed that if fine is recovered, Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) from the same be paid to the Complainant as compensation. The case of the prosecutrix (without naming, and hereafter referred as "victim") has been referred to the District Victim Compensation Board, Hingoli with recommendation to give adequate compensation to the victim. 2. Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 has been filed by the victim seeking enhancement in the compensation to the tune of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar has preferred one group of Writ Petitions and the identically placed Respondents/Daily Wage Employees in the said petitions have also filed the second group of Writ Petitions wherein the Agriculture University is the Respondent. For the sake of brevity, the Agriculture University in these matters shall be referred to as the University and the Daily Wage Employees, who are Respondents in the petitions filed by the University and are Petitioners in their own group of petitions, shall be referred to as the Workers . 3. While issuing notice, this Court by it s order dated 22.04.2016 had directed that the amount deposited by the Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri with the Appellate Authority (PGA) shall not be disbursed until further orders. 4. The University is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 20.10....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.L. Achliya, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner herein seeks quashing of complaint bearing No.150 of 2016 filed by the respondent under Section 28(1) of Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Amendment Act of 2003, (henceforth referred to as the "PCPNDT Act") on the grounds set out in detail in the petition. 3. Before adverting to appreciate the submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to filing of petition. The petitioner claims to be Doctor by profession and holds the degree as "Ayurved Visharad". He claims to be author of more than twenty books and composed twenty five healing music albums. Petitioner claims that he has played an active and significant role in promotion of Ayurved. He also claims that he has initiated the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik by which Appeal No.32/1996 filed by her was dismissed. 2. This petition was admitted on 17.02.1997. 3. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 19.07.2016, 20.07.2016, 21.07.2016 and today. 4. The submissions of Shri Mantri, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, can be summarized as follows: (a) The Petitioner had passed her SSC when she was appointed on 01.06.1987 as an Assistant Teacher. (b) For three years, she had not completed her postal Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) which was to be completed by correspondence course. (c) Her first application for being admitted to the postal D.Ed. course is dated 21.01.1991 which was rejected by Respondent No.5/ Deputy Director of Education. (d) The Petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Director by filing R.C.S. No.202/1992. (e) By judgment dated 29.04.1995, the said Civil Suit was di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jul-18-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: A. To quash the order dated 19.07.2014 issued by the respondent No.6 (Exh-Q) by issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ. C. To hold and declare that the medical practitioners belonging to Ayush more particularly BUMS are eligible to be appointed as Medical Officers in the recruitment process of Medical Officers (National Child Health Team). D. To direct the respondent to call medical practitioners belonging to Unani medical system for participating in the recruitment process for the post of Medical Officers (National Child health Team) to be held pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.07.2014. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed his Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery Degree from the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik in the year 2011. He is a Medical Practitioner, duly registered with the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine, Mumbai. According to him, it is well...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jul-04-2016
1. Revision is admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The proceeding is filed against the judgment and decree of Rent Suit No.206/1999 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal and also against the judgment and decree of Rent Appeal No.60/2014 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-1, Bhusawal. The suit was filed by the present appellant, landlord for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial Court has dismissed the suit and the first appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the trial Court. 3. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the revision can be stated as follows :- 4. The suit property is a shop premises. It is in two pieces. One piece has the size of 10 ft x 10 ft and the other piece has the size of 3 ft x 4 ft. It is part and parcel of CTS No.1538 situated at Bhusawal and it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jun-29-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the writ petition, by an order dated 23.01.2012, was pleased to formulate following two issues for consideration of the larger Bench: I. Whether the term aghadi or front as defined U/Sec. 2(a) of the Disqualification Act of 1986 would mean the party or aghadi on whose candidature the councillor is elected or would also include the aghadi of two or more municipal parties coming into existence after the elections are held? II. Whether the term original political party or aghadi appearing in Sec. 5 would mean the party at its National level or would mean a municipal party? 2. We have heard arguments advanced by Shri P.M.Shah, learned Senior Counsel i/by Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate for petitioners, Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned advocate for Respondent No.1, Shri Umakant P. Giri, learned advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr.A.B. Girase, learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.3. 3. The facts in nutshell, giving rise to the referenc...
Tag this Judgment!