Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Criminal Writ Petition is heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the order below Exhibit 1 dated 21/01/2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur in Criminal Misc. Application no. 483 of 2004 and the judgment and order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 21/01/2015 in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2015, the original accused has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present Criminal Writ Petition, are as follows: On the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 herein, crime no. 78 of 2000 came to be registered at Gategaon Police Station against the present petitioner and others for having committed offences punishable under section 147,148, 149, 323, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, the concerned Police Station has submitted the chargesheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur on 24/8/2004. On presentation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. Petitioner herein has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of RCS NO. 265/2015 pending on the file of CJM, Nanded, on the grounds set out in detail in the petition. 3. Petitioner herein claims to be Doctor by profession and practices at Nanded. She possesses the educational qualification as MBBS and DGO. Petitioner started her practice at Nanded since August 2013. She has installed Sonography machine in her Hospital known as Suyog Hospital at Nanded. She claims that, the Sonography centre established by her is duly registered with the Health Department and the certificate of registration is valid for the period 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2018. 4. On 26.2.2015, the members of the Regional Vigilance Squad, Aurangabad, inspected the Ultrasonography Centre of the petitioner and r...
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 petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25/09/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking discharge from Reg.Cri.Case No.529/2011 has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15/05/2015 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Court, Dhule by which the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed 3. I have heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP on behalf of the respondents at length. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner is whether the complaint filed by the respondent and registered as RCC No.529/2011 would be maintained in the light of the contentions of the respondents/complainants? 5. The petitioner is being prosecuted vide RCC No.529/2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Dhule on the alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Appellant, a Medical Officer had been convicted by the Special Judge, Amalner in Special Case No.11 of 1999 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ( Act in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.750/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. He has been further convicted of offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.750/-, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Thus, this Appeal against conviction. 2. In short, the case of prosecution is as under: (A). On 28th September 1993 complainant Ramsing Walvi (PW-1) approached the Dy.S.P. PW-5 Prabhakar Shankar Patil in the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Dhule and filed complaint (Exhibit 12). The complainant, resident of Hisale, Tq-Shirur, raised grievance that he had taken his wife Bairabai f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. All these Writ Petitions have been admitted by this Court. The first four petitions have been filed by the employees and the last petition has been filed by the Sugar Factory at issue. For the sake of clarity, the worker petitioners would be referred to as the "Employees" and the employer would be referred to as the "Factory". 2. In all these petitions, the judgment impugned is dated 6.5.1997, delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 2 of 1996 involving 64 employees, 3 of 1996 involving 6 employees, 4 of 1996 involving 74 employees and 5 of 1996 involving 66 employees. 3. These matters were argued by the learned Advocates for the respective sides on 14.1.2016, 15.1.2016, 28.1.2016, 4.2.2016, 9.2.2016, 11.2.2016, 16.2.2016, 18.2.2016, 24.2.2016, 25.2.2016, 1.3.2016 and 14.3.2016, when the matter was closed for judgment. 4. I have considered the extensive and lengthy submissions of the learned Advocates for the employees, the learned Sr. Advocate for the m...
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 question/issue that has been raised in this petition is with regard to the distinction between a fraud / nebulous act and innocuous act. The said issue has been canvassed by the petitioners and the respondents in the light of the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, which substantially deal with this issue; [i] Shalini Vs. New English High School Association and others, 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 913 = 2014(1) All M R 904 [ii] Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Bombay High Court Full Bench, 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21/08/2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, Latur by which Appeal No.42/2014 filed by respondent No.1 / employee has been partly allowed and his termination dated 12/10/2013 has been quashed and set aside in the light of the ratio laid down in the various ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant husband an Ophthalmologist (hereafter referred as "Petitioner"), whose Petition for divorce against the Respondent wife B.H.M.S. practicing Homeopathy (hereafter referred as "Respondent") has been dismissed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A.263 of 2006. Keeping in view the nature of dispute, we have blocked the names of the parties in the cause title. 2. Succinctly put, the marriage between the parties took place on 29th November 2002. They lived together happily for some time and then due to disputes, the Petitioner claims that the Respondent deserted him on 30th December 2003. The Respondent claims that she was beaten and left at the place of her parents on 4th December 2003. Petitioner husband earlier filed Divorce Petition No.A.46 of 2004 on 3rd February 2004. The Respondent received summons in that matter on 9th February 2004. Thereafter few incidents took place and the Respondent filed F.I.R. leading to cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant husband an Ophthalmologist (hereafter referred as "Petitioner"), whose Petition for divorce against the Respondent wife B.H.M.S. practicing Homeopathy (hereafter referred as "Respondent") has been dismissed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A.263 of 2006. Keeping in view the nature of dispute, we have blocked the names of the parties in the cause title. 2. Succinctly put, the marriage between the parties took place on 29th November 2002. They lived together happily for some time and then due to disputes, the Petitioner claims that the Respondent deserted him on 30th December 2003. The Respondent claims that she was beaten and left at the place of her parents on 4th December 2003. Petitioner husband earlier filed Divorce Petition No.A.46 of 2004 on 3rd February 2004. The Respondent received summons in that matter on 9th February 2004. Thereafter few incidents took place and the Respondent filed F.I.R. leading to cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. While issuing notice to the respondent on 14/10/2015, I had recorded the contentions of the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as under: 1. The petitioner was working as a Banking Inspector? at Talani Branch. He had initially joined as a Clerk on 20/05/1985. He was charged with having indulged in misappropriation and after conducting a domestic enquiry, he has been dismissed from service on 23/03/2009. 2. He preferred Complaint (ULP) No.1/2011 before the Labour Court. He was held to be a workman. By the impugned judgment and order dated 20/03/2012, the complaint was dismissed. He preferred Revision (ULP) No.38/2012 before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 06/09/2014. 3. It is submitted that though the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer have been challenged, the Labour Court has not framed the first two issues in relation the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. This matter was admitted by order dated 09.09.1999. I have gone through the petition paper book and I have considered the impugned order and the documents which form the part of the compilation. 2. The Petitioner has filed this petition on account of refusal of the School Tribunal in condoning the delay caused in preferring the appeal before the School Tribunal. The Application for condonation of delay Exhibit-2 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.07.1998. 3. It appears from the record that the Petitioner, who was terminated on 22.05.1994, has filed the appeal on 14.08.1997. On advise, he initially preferred the civil suit before the Civil Court for challenging his termination. Further, on advise, he had filed a complaint before the Industrial Court and subsequently has filed a writ petition before this Court. The School Tribunal has recorded these aspects. 4. It was stated by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal that after he realized that the juris...
Tag this Judgment!