Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1 Heard Shri K.C.Sant, learned Counsel appearing for Revision Petitioner and Shri S.D.Dhongade, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioner - original opponent in Probate Application No.1/2008 before the trial Court is raising exception to the order passed below Exhibit-28 on 13th August, 2010 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner. Respondent No.1 herein presented Probate Application before the trial Court requesting for grant of probate in respect of will deed executed by Baburao Zendu Chavan (Dhobi) on 25.04.2011. In the application presented to the trial Court, Respondent No.1 contended that his father had a brother by name Baburao Chavan (Dhobi), who did not have any male successor. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 herein, being the daughters of deceased Baburao, after solemnization of their marriage, went to reside w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 26 of 2010. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is a registered society and is established to lift water from river by way of lift irrigation. The respondent No.1 is the District Central Co-operative Bank and the respondent No. 2 is the branch of the said bank. The petitioner society applied for loan of Rs.11,94,000/- to the respondent No.1 bank, through the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 1 sanctioned loan with thirteen yearly instalments with interest @ 13% p.a. for 12 years period for repayment, on condition of executing promissory notes, by the present petitioner. The petitioner society then paid initial instalment and then amount towards the price of sugar cane was forwarded to the bank by the sugar factory, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 26 of 2010. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is a registered society and is established to lift water from river by way of lift irrigation. The respondent No.1 is the District Central Co-operative Bank and the respondent No. 2 is the branch of the said bank. The petitioner society applied for loan of Rs.11,94,000/- to the respondent No.1 bank, through the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 1 sanctioned loan with thirteen yearly instalments with interest @ 13% p.a. for 12 years period for repayment, on condition of executing promissory notes, by the present petitioner. The petitioner society then paid initial instalment and then amount towards the price of sugar cane was forwarded to the bank by the sugar factory, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. The applicants have filed the present application for quashment of the FIR lodged against them and Crime No.I-141/2012 registered against them on the basis of the said FIR at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offenses punishable under Sections 119, 167, 418, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 59 and 62 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958. 2. On 30.8.2012, Shri Bramhadeo Vasudeo Gawade, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, filed written report against the present applicants at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, alleging that the present applicants, in connivance with Shri V.M.Made, the then in-charge Sub Registrar-II, Aurangabad, and Mrs. Kavita Pradip Kadam, the then Junior Clerk working in the office of Sub Registr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.130/1974, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.35/2001, which was pending in the District Court, Ahmednagar. The suit filed by Premsukh for relief of partition and separate possession of his share from Joint Hindu Family properties is decreed in his favour. Both the sides are heard. 2. The facts, leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated in brief as follows :- One Ramdayal was the father of plaintiff. Nandlal was also son of Ramdayal and he was the father of defendant No.1 - Madanlal. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are sons of defendant No.1. 3. It is the case of plaintiff Premsukh that he and defendant No.1 were doing business under the name and style as 'M/s. Ramdayal Nandlal' at Ahmednagar and this was the business of Joint Hindu Family consisting of plaintiff and Nandlal. It is contended that only ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. This first appeal is admitted on 12th March, 1998. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Appellant Banks suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.27,76,137/- and for preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged property for recovery of the said amount was decreed against the borrower original defendant No.1, but was dismissed against the guarantors i.e. defendants No.2 to 6. Hence, this first appeal against the guarantors. 3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in short, is as under: That, the original defendant No.1 has availed a loan of Rs.10 (ten) lacs on 12.02.1988 and 10.03.1988 for the purposes of purchase of a truck with bore-well Rig, Machine, Screw Compressor, Drilling Rig, etc. The original defendant No.1 the borrower hypothecated the said machinery and its accessories with the plaintiff Bank. At the same time, the defendants No.2 to 6 i.e. present respondents No.2 to 6 agreed to stand as continuing guarantors for the original defendant No.1 in repaym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioners are the proprietary firms doing business of repairing of weights, measures and scales and do possess repairing licences issued by the Legal Metrology Department under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Petitioners are objecting to the circulars issued by the Controller of Legal Metrology, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, dated 22.10.2014 and 27.10.2014. 3 It is recorded in the circular dated 22.10.2014, that the Department issued licences under Section 28 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, in favour of repairers authorising them to repair the weights, measures and scales. The repairers are not entitled to collect fees prescribed for verification of the weights, measures and scales and deposit the amount with the Inspector. The licences issued in favour of the repairers do not contain any clause authorising them to recover verification f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
P.R. Bora, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the F.I.R. No. 3/2013, registered at Nandurbar City Police Station on 05.01.2013 and has also prayed for setting aside the charge sheet filed on the basis of the said F.I.R. in Regular Criminal Case No.23/2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 1946 Act for short) and Sections 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Though the petitioner was initially praying for setting aside the entire charge sheet, during the course of hearing of the present petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is restricting his petition only to the extent of prayer clause (D), which reads thus : (D) In the alternative the action/F.I.R. to the extent of Section 420/511 I.P.C. may be quashed with all steps inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
ORAL ORDER : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)1 The learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad has forwarded this reference under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The points formulated by the learned District Judge in the statement submitted to High Court are as noted below :I Whether the interpretation of term "instrument" used in section 147 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 made in the case reported as AIR 1991 SC 401 ( between Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Pramod Gupta) can be extended to the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act viz. for clause no. 16 from Schedule I annexed to Bombay Stamp Act.II Whether in view of the interpretation of term, "instrument" made by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case law, said clause of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act needs to be treated as invalid.III Whether due to interpretation of provisions of Order 21 Rule 94 of Code of Civil Procedure in relation to the provisions of Indian Registration At made in 2007 SCW 4080 ( B. Arvindkumar v. Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Heard Mr.M.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.V.Mohekar, learned counsel for the respondents, at length. 2] Rule. Mr.Mohekar waives service for the respondents. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3] A short but interesting question arises in the present petition. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted Regular Civil Suit No.545 of 2006 on 13th September, 2006 against the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of one mango tree situate in gat no.152 admeasuring 5 H 65 R situate at Mauje Satephal, Tq.Kalamb, District Osmanabad (for short the said tree). The plaintiffs also sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from enjoying the said tree. 4] The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement dated 17th...
Tag this Judgment!