Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by original accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. Both of them were charged along with accused no.2 Govardhanlal Shriramdas Sachdeva, the father of original accused no.1 Bhupendra. Accused no.2 Govardhanlal came to be acquitted by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief). Accused No.1 Bhupendra and accused No. 3 Rupindar were convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Accused No.1 Bhupendra was convicted under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Accused No.3 Rupindar came to be convicted under Section 114 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sentences of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months were also passed under Sections 302, 498A and 114 of IPC. Accused No.1 Bhupen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Mumbai [for short 'CAT'] in Original application No.217/2013. There is also prayer for quashing and setting aside the order of termination of the services of the petitioner issued by the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, New Delhi. Further direction is sought to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the employment. It is further prayed to hold and declare that Article 81 [B] of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya, is ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution of India. 2. The CAT has extensively referred the facts of the case in the impugned judgment, and therefore, we do not feel it necessary to reproduce the said facts; as and when it is necessary we will make a reference to the relevant facts from the impugned judgment. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant [original accused], challenging the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the Adhoc District Judge1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.179/2005, thereby convicting the appellant “ original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of I.P. Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, R.I. for 3 months, and S.I. of one Year and fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I. for one month, respectively. 2. Facts giving rise to the prosecution case, in brief, are that, accused Dr. Girish Vasant Kolhe, was residing in Bendale Nagar, Area of Jalgaon, in a house namely ˜Gujnan™, along with his wife, Jayashri, two sons namely Bhushan and Vinit, as well as his parents. The accused Dr. Girish Kolhe is a Medical Practitioner, running Dispensary in Hudco Colony. His wife deceased Jayshri was also Medical Practitioner. Both of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. A vital issue emerges in this petition:- "Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ( MEPS Rules for short), issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?" 5. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I had invited the learned Advocates practicing in service law to render their assistance in this matter. I have thus heard the learned Advocates for the litigating sides, as well as, those learned Advocates. 6. The petitioner / management has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015, delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No. 5 of 2013, filed by the appellant / employee Respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant Original accused no.3, challenging the judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.277/2012 (Old No.319/2009), thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. On 30.05.2009, accused no.1 Vitthal lodged the report at Police Station Waluj (Exh.60) alleging that his daughter-in-law deceased Swati has not woke up as usual in the morning, and when he tried to awaken her she was not responding, therefore, he took her to the Hospital where the Medical Officer found her dead. On his report, A.D. bearing No.15/2009 was registered. 3. PSI Suresh Bhale (PW-5) conducted the inquiry of A.D. He sent dead body for post mortem examinati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
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
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra, aggrieved by judgment and order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 30th August, 1995, thereby acquitting the Respondents for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (i) That, the complainant Vandanabai w/o Satyanarayan Thakur is the resident of Gadipura, Renuka Mandir, Nanded. Vandana has two sons namely Dhanraj and Dhanprakash. She has one daughter by name Rajkumari. Vandana's husband Satyanarayan is electrician by profession and does the work of repair of fans and electric motors. At the time of incident, Vandana was residing with her husband and children in the house in Gadipura area. Satyanarayan has two married sisters namely Vimalbai and Karunabai. (ii) Accused and complainant Vandana at the relevant time were residing in the same Wada situated at Gadipura. Accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The Appeals arise out of Judgment of conviction passed against the Appellants-accused (hereafter referred as accused- with numbers as given to them in the trial Court and mentioned above in the cause title) by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.76 of 1999, on 18th January 2000. The 13 accused were convicted for offence under Section 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.). Additionally accused No.13 was convicted for offence under Section 368 of I.P.C. However, trial Court passed order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 13 of offence punishable under Section 363, 364-A read with 34 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 365 of I.P.C. the sentence imposed was of simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 368 of I.P.C., sentence imposed was simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 188/2013, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P. Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further S.I. for six months and further convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P. Code and sentencing him to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under: According to the prosecution case, the incident in question had taken place on 22nd February, 2013. On the day of incident, P.S.O. Wadod Bajar received the information and accordingly he registered A.D. No. 6/2013 and forwarded it to the Police Naik Pungle to carry out the investig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
ORAL :1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants at length and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10th February, 1999 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 82/1998.2. It is the prosecution case that :P.W. 1 Salimoddin resident of Nashirabad was on cross terms with the accused Salimoddin and his father accused No. 2 Gulam. On 08th November, 1997 a quarrel took place between his brother Hasinoddin and daughter of accused Gulam. On 09.11.1997 Salimoddin had been to Jalgaon for some work. At about 11.30 a.m. when he was proceeding by road and reached near Nashirabad rickshaw stop the accused persons assaulted him with knives causing injuries on chest, back, thigh, right hand and both knees. They were saying that they would kill him. He raised shouts for help, on which P.W. 4 Iqbalkhan and P.W. 6 Nasirali came there and rescued him. He was sent to Civil Ho...
Tag this Judgment!