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
1. The first proceeding is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relief to set aside the order of issue process made in Regular Criminal Case No.73/2011 is claimed and the relief of quashing of the proceeding filed as a complaint by the public servant, authority under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is claimed. The proceeding is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad and it is filed under sections 23, 25, 29 of the Act and under Rule 9(4), (6) and (8) of the The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred to as "the Rules"). Criminal Revision Application No.9/2011 was filed against the order of issue process by the petitioners in Sessions Court but the revision is dismissed by the Sessio...
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. 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!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
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
1) All the petitions are filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings are in respect of action taken of filing complaint by the authority created under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and so all the proceedings are being decided by common order. 2) Complaints are filed against the petitioners by an officer to whom the authority under the Act has been given to take action and file complaint for the breach of the provisions of the Act and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 framed under the Act (for short, "the Rules"). The matters are relating to the provisions of Sections 4 (3), 5,6, 23, 29 and 30 of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate has made order of issue process in all the complaints. Prayers are made for setting aside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant [original accused], challenging the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 217 of 2007, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gayabai and Sunita and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, which shall not be less than 28 years of actual jail sentence, meaning that the accused should remain in jail for minimum 28 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer another one year. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. The accused is the husband of deceased Sunita and son-in-law of deceased Gayabai and complainant Dinkar Kandhare. The complainant Dinkar Kandhare lodged the report on 13.09.2007. The marriage of accused and deceased Sunita solemnized five years prior to the incident. As the accused was not having any child from his first wife, he mar...
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!