Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: mumbai aurangabad Page 1 of about 2,006 results (0.128 seconds)

Nov 25 2016 (HC)

Mahesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Oral Order: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks his release on bail pursuant to his arrest on 30th June, 2016 in connection with Crime No. 494 of 2016 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Beed for offences punishable under Sections 326, 326A, 374, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. 3. As per F.I.R. dated 30th June, 2016, the applicant runs Ashirwad Bhojanalaya in which he had employed one Ganesh aged about 12 years against his wishes. On making necessary enquiry, it was found that Ganesh had been working in the said Bhojanalaya. He was not being paid despite doing work. It was further stated that when he had demanded his money, he had been assaulted and given burns. On that basis, offence came to be registered under the aforesaid Sections. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant tha...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2016 (HC)

Gangadhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. K.N.Lokhande, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad, by which the applications filed by the petitioner/accused seeking adjournment to cross examine the prosecution witnesses are rejected and as a consequence, the petitioner/accused has lost an opportunity of cross examining the prosecution witnesses. 3. Though, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 56, and the facts of the present case, the following order is passed to sub-serve the ends of justice. (i) Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Auran...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2016 (HC)

Hemand Vs. Sharad and Another

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Oral Order: 1. By the present application, the applicant who is the informant, on the basis of which F.I.R. No.384 of 2015, for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent no.1. 2. The respondent no.1 has been accused of preparing and sanctioning eight loan cases with regard to non-existent persons, so as to enable such persons to get benefit under the NBCFDL scheme conducted by the Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati and Bhatkya Jamati Development Corporation, Latur. After aforesaid offence was registered, the applicant applied under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which application came to be allowed by the Sessions Court by order dated 9th December, 2015. This order is sought to be cancelled by the applicant. 3. Mr Malte, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Judge of the Sessions Court was not justified in granting anticipato...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2016 (HC)

Zilla Parishad, Through its Chief Executive Officer and Others Vs. The ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Oral Judgment: (A) Writ Petition No.6666/2006 : 1. The Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad is aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.07.2006 delivered by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP) Nos.23/2000 and 101/2000 vide which both the complaints have been allowed and the Employees mentioned in Annexure-A to the Complaints, have been granted benefits of the Kalelkar Settlement coupled with the Bhole Commission Recommendations and accordingly, the Zilla Parishad has been directed to take these Employees on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) after completion of five years as daily wagers. 2. This Court, by order dated 14.12.2006, has elaborately dealt with the issue involved in this petition. The litigating sides were permitted to file their written notes of submissions and upon minutely considering the same, this Court admitted the petition and directed the Petitioner/Zilla Parishad to bring the Employees on CRTE within a period of three weeks. The direction of the Indus...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2016 (HC)

Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal Vs. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

ORDER ON APLICATION IN EP NO.74 OF 2016 IN ELECTIONI PETITION NO.6 OF 2014: 1. The application is filed by respondent No.1 to raise objection that evidence in chief in the election petition filed under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 cannot be given on affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Heard both the sides. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 took this Court through various provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules made by the High Court, Original Side Rules 1980, and also Article 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 129 of the Civil Procedure Code. He placed reliance on two reported cases like (1) AIR 2005 SC 2441 (Kailash v. Nanhku); and, (2) AIR 1982 SC 983 (Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal). 3. The relevant portion of the provision of section 87 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 runs as under :- "87. Procedure before the High Court. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2016 (HC)

Hitendra Ramesh Deshmukh and Others Vs. The Returning Officer and Othe ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the Returning Officer for the election of Municipal Council, Chopda, District Jalgaon. Both sides are heard. 2. The petitioner had prayed for giving common symbol to the candidates of their registered political party and they had requested for giving Road Roller as symbol to all candidates of the registered political party. They have registered their political party under the name as Shahar Vikas Aghadi, Chopda and it was registered in the year 2007. The Returning Officer has rejected the application by holding that Annexures I and II which were required to be supplied before 04.00 p.m. of 29th October, 2016 i.e. the time given for filing the nomination form were not supplied and so common symbol cannot be given to the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel of both sides took this Court through various provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Election Rules, 1966 and Maharashtra Election Sym...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2016 (HC)

Vinay Tilokchand Karnavat Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Se ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

K. L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.2, dated 5th September, 2013 along with public notice dated 24.02.2015 and the proceedings of advertisement No. 12/2014 by which respondent No.2 has fixed tariff. The petitioner has further challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 in Case No. 95/2013, dated 25.06.2015 by way of amendment in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is a consumer of respondent No.3-Company. Respondent No.2 is a Regulatory Commission established under the Electricity Act, 2003. It has power to fix tariff and is expected to be a watchdog of interest of the consumers and function transparently. 5. According to the petitioner, on 16.08.2012, respondent No.2 settled the tariff w.e.f. 1st August, 2012 in case No.19/2012. As per provisions of Electricity Act, respondent No...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2016 (HC)

Purushottam Vs. Narayan

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging two orders both of the date 23rd February, 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nandurbar in Civil Appeal No.17/2011. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the present appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar in Special Civil Suit No.13/2007. The aforesaid civil suit was filed by the present respondent, seeking partition and possession. Relief of permanent injunction was also sought. The learned Trial Court decreed the said suit partly and held the plaintiff and defendant therein entitled for half share each in the suit land and the suit house. 3. The civil suit filed by present respondent was resisted by the present appellant on several grounds. It was the contention of the appellant that the partition was already effected in respect of the suit properties in the year 1962. It...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2016 (HC)

Sayyad Yousuf and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Se ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Writ Petition No.6794/2012 is filed against the judgment and order dated 4th of August, 2012, passed by the School Tribunal at Latur in Appeal No.14 of 2011. Petitioner was respondent no.3 in the Appeal before the School Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal was filed by present respondent no.3 challenging promotion of the present petitioner on the post of Headmaster with a consequential relief to promote him on the post of Headmaster from 1.1.2003 by setting aside the promotion of the present appellant as Headmaster. 3. It was the contention of the present respondent no.3 in the aforesaid appeal that the present appellant was junior to him and could not have been appointed on the post of Headmaster, superseding his claim. As against it, it was the contention of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal that the appeal filed by respondent no.3 was hopelessly barred by l...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2016 (HC)

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

1. Being aggrieved by the seizure of goods under receipt dated 8.5.2002, notice dated 11.5.2002, and a complaint dated 18.10.2002 and the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad dated 19.10.2002 issuing thereby process against the applicants, the applicants prefers this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the same. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present application are as under: a] The applicant No.1, is a Company registered under the Companies Act having its office at Mumbai. The company has a manufacturing Unit/Factory at Aurangabad and the company is engaged at aforesaid unit, in manufacturing, inter-alia, toilet soaps. b] On 8.5.2002 respondent no.2 had inspected the toilet soap stored in the petitioner no.1's premises. It was noticed during the said inspection that the products of the company namely Palmolive Naturals Soap (with milk cream) and Palmolive Naturals Soap (Relaxing) have weighed lesser than the declared net...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //