Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
:-1 This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.). Aurangabad in Special Case No. 20 of 1997, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) r.w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to suffer S.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs.3000/-. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default S.I. for two months. The trial court has ordered that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.2 The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under:- The appellant accused Dr. Smt. Usha Sarwade on 6.2.1996 was working as "Casualty Medical Officer" in Government Medical College and Hospital Aurangabad and so she was a public servant. The complainant Deelip Shelar, r/o Witkheda alongwith his parents on 3.2.1996 was assaulted by one Parbhat Dapke ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Top of Form 1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the workers employed with the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar i.e. the respondent herein. Complaint (ULP) No. 141 of 1987 was filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act") by the petitioners seeking permanency in service. The Industrial Court by its order dated 4th April, 1990 declared that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The respondent was directed to accord the petitioners the status and benefits of permanency with effect from 1st July, 1987. The Industrial Court also directed the respondent to fix the salary and allowance of the petitioners in the time scale as per the posts held by them and to further pay them all monetary benefits, including bonus on or before 30th June, 1990, failing whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.11.2010, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Revision Petition NO. 6/B/2010/AN. 3. The particulars and events which are disclosed by the petitioner in this petition are as under. . The agricultural land bearing Gut No. 680(Old Survey No. 296) admeasuring 4H.23 R situated at village Telangshi, Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmendagar, was initially owned and possessed by one Maruti Babu Jaybhaye. Maruti Babu Jaybhaye died on 13.7.1955 and the name of his legal heir, namely, Bhagwan @ Ganpati S/o Maruti Jaybhaye was recorded in the 7/12 extract vide mutation entry No.2300. . It is further contended that the said Bhagwan @ Ganpati is the father of petitioner and he was in actual possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Deshmukh, J. 01. These are the three writ petitions among the same parties coming up for hearing. 02. Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997 has been filed by petitioner Abdul Jamey praying for directions to respondents to treat him as a trained teacher in the primary school and to grant approval to his appointment accordingly, with further direction to grant and release salary in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 from 17.6.1995 and payment of arrears and also seeks a declaration of confirmation pursuant to Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act") and rules framed thereunder viz. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter, referred to as "MEPS Rules"). 03. Petitioner appears to have been appointed by Respondent No.5-Management in Respondent No.6-School under an order dated 17.6.1995 in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. A proposal with regard to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Deshmukh, J. 01. These are the three writ petitions among the same parties coming up for hearing. 02. Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997 has been filed by petitioner Abdul Jamey praying for directions to respondents to treat him as a trained teacher in the primary school and to grant approval to his appointment accordingly, with further direction to grant and release salary in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 from 17.6.1995 and payment of arrears and also seeks a declaration of confirmation pursuant to Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act") and rules framed thereunder viz. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter, referred to as "MEPS Rules"). 03. Petitioner appears to have been appointed by Respondent No.5-Management in Respondent No.6-School under an order dated 17.6.1995 in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. A proposal with regard to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.V. Ghuge, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2946/2012, has preferred this intra Court appeal for challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. 2. Being a Letters Patent Appeal, we were not required to look into the matter threadbare, and reappreciate the entire evidence recorded before the Labour Court and the details as they emerge from the judgment of the Labour Court, Latur, as well as the Industrial Court, Latur. However, being conscious of the fact that this appeal gave an opportunity to the appellant to make an attempt to point out perversities and illegalities, if any, from the two judgments of the lower Courts and draw our attention to any perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge, we decided to look into the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. It is with this object that we have turned our attention to the first judgment that was delivered by the Labour Court, Latur, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employee with respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra, has assailed the norms laid down for the purposes of availing the benefit of 3% reservation provided for physically handicapped persons. Submission is, barring a person suffering from visual impairment is not in consonance with the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "1995 Act") and also it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner has passed his M.B.B.S. course as a physically handicapped person from Government Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad in 2003. He had taken admission in 1998-99. The petitioner then completed compulsory internship and joined employment as a Medical Officer in 2006. In 2009 he passed M.P.S.C. examination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard all the sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The first application is filed by Dr. Smt. Mundhe in R.C.C. No. 163/2012, which is filed by Appropriate Authority for offences punishable under sections 3-A, 4(5), 5, 6, 8 and 19 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCPNDT Act' for short) and also under the Rules framed under this Special Act. The second application is filed by the State against Dr. Smt. Mundhe, for cancellation of bail, granted to her by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed in C.R. No. 42/2012 registered in Parli City Police Station. The chargesheet is filed in this crime for offences punishable under section 304, 312, 314, 315, 316 and 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and also for offences punishable under section 3, 4-B and 6 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as '...
Tag this Judgment!