Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar has referred this matter for confirmation of death sentence awarded to respondent “ original accused Anil Jagannath Pawar in Sessions Case No.43/2011, vide judgment dated 16.10.2014. The Criminal Appeal has been filed by Anil Jagannath Pawar against death sentence awarded to him. The other accused No.2 Anil @ Piraji Sukhdeo Pawar was acquitted by the trial Court. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is as under:- On 13.8.2011, at about 10.30 a.m., daughter of P.W.1 Eknath (hereinafter referred as victim) was passing on bicycle from near Gat No.415 at Dorhale, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, belonging to one Nanasaheb Dange (P.W.3), and accused No.1 Anil Jagannath Pawar (hereinafter referred to as accused) dragged the victim girl, aged about 13 years, inside the field. She was taken inside portion of standing sugarcane crop and she was raped and murdered. The accused had come ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 27/2003, which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-5, Nanded. The appeal filed by present respondents/original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 75/2001, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kinwat is allowed by the First Appellate Court and the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs. Both the sides are heard. 2. R.C.S. No. 75/2001 was filed in respect of land Gat Nos. 57, 58 and 59 situated at village Murli. Relief was claimed for declaration of a document of Will executed in favour of one Keshav Bhaware as null and void. Declaration was claimed that aforesaid three properties belong to plaintiffs and relief of possession of these properties was also claimed. 3. It is the case of plaintiffs that one Sambhaji Bhaware was owner of aforesaid lands. It is contended that Sambhaji had a son by name Thakaji and one daughter by name Vithab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. On 25.08.2015, this Court has passed the following order: 1. The learned Advocates submit on instructions from their respective clients present in the Court that they have no objection if this Court hears these matters. 2. These matters have been heard for almost two hours. 3. Stand over to 07.09.2015 at 02:30 pm as PARTHEARD, at the request of the learned Advocates.? 3. The Petitioners in the first petition challenge the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court at Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.47/2008 filed by the Petitioners was dismissed. 4. The Petitioners in the second petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.97/2008 filed by these Petitioners has been dismissed. 5. The Petitioners in the third petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar on Exh. 23 in Sessions Case No. 03/2009. The application was filed by applicants for discharge. The charge sheet is filed against them for offences punishable under section 306, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under section 32, 33(a), (b) of Bombay Money Lending Act. 2. The application is rejected by Sessions Court. Both the sides are heard. Copies of papers of investigation were made available to this Court. 3. Crime is registered on the basis of the report given by one Smt. Arti. Deceased Anil was her husband. He committed suicide by hanging himself in his house on 03/08/2009. It is the case of his widow that there was some money lending transaction between the applicants and the deceased and the applicants were harassing the deceased due to the transaction. It is her case that some document in respect of the land of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Respondents (hereinafter referred as "Plaintiffs") have filed special Civil Suit No.80 of 2009 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. The suit has been brought against present Applicants (hereinafter referred as "Defendants") for recovery of possession of property leased and recovery of lease amount. The dispute which has arisen between the parties is, whether Plaintiffs who have styled themselves as "Shreeji Enterprises Erandol" and shown themselves as partners, is a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ("Partnership Act" in brief). 2. Prakash Bhatia and other three arrayed above, have filed the suit claiming that the property in dispute was leased out to Defendants Indian Oil Corporation by one Sarla Bahubali Gangwal. The Plaintiffs purchased the suit property from Sarla Bahubali Gangwal by registered sale deed, with right to the lease rent and as the rent was in arrears, the lease has been terminated and the possession has been claimed along with lease amount...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 233/1983, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon. The appeal of original plaintiffs against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 89/1975 is allowed by the First Appellate Court and decree of possession is given by the District Court in favour of original plaintiffs. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:- The suit was filed in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 32 (Gat No. 107) admeasuring 3 H. 45 R. situated at village Khirwad, Tahsil Raver, District Jalgaon. It is the case of plaintiffs that the suit property was ancestral property of their father Eknath. Eknath was husband of plaintiff No. 2. It is contended that Eknath was addicted to bad habits like consuming liquor and gaming Satta. 3. It is the case of plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 is shrewd and cunning businessman, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Instant writ petition is presented by eleven agriculturists challenging the award passed by Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Degloor on 31.03.2010. 3 The impugned award is passed in respect of lands belonging to petitioners situate at village Bhendegaon Khurd, Tq.Mukhed, District Nanded, which are required for the purposes of resettlement of project affected persons. 4 It is not disputed that on earlier occasion, agricultural lands belonging to petitioners situate at village Bhendegaon Khurd have been acquired for submergence under Lendi Project by declaring the award on 30.11.2005. It is not a matter of dispute that Lendi Project is an Inter-State Project jointly executed by the State of Maharashtra and State of Andhra Pradesh. In view of acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners for Lendi Irrigation Project, they are affected pers...
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
J U D G M E N T 1. These appeals, being disposed of by common judgment, are arising out of the judgment and order dated 15/5/2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No. 18/2006. The appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 312/08 were accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3; the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 242/08 was accused No. 4; whereas the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 795/08 was accused No.5. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused persons as per their numbers in the Sessions Trial. 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried for offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, I.P.C.) and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Vide the impugned judgment and order, accused Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. They are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of I.P.C. and convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!