Sheetal Sureshkumar Nahar And … vs Dr. Deelip Prabhakarrao … on 2 May, 2019

On

3 Second Appeal No.843 of 2018 has been filed by the original

plaintiffs challenging the concurrent findings in Regular Civil Appeal

No.164/2012 by learned Adhoc District Judge-3, Beed dated 21.08.2018,

wherein the Judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Senior

Division, Beed in Special Civil Suit No.68/2006 dated 20.04.2010 was

challenged. The said suit was filed by the present appellants for specific

performance of the contract.

4 Since the basic pleadings of the parties in all the matters is one

and the same, at this stage of admission they are commonly dealt with.

5 Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.N. Kakade for the appellants in all

the three matters and learned Advocate Mr. G.K. Thigale (Naik) for

respondent in Second Appeal Nos.841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018. He has

made submissions in Second Appeal Nos.842 of 2018 and 843 of 2018, also

though he made submissions in respect of Second Appeal No.841 of 2018 he

::: Uploaded on – 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 03/05/2019 06:39:03 :::
4 SA_841,842,843_2018

has not filed his appearance. It will not be out of place to mention here that

Second Appeal Nos.841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 are arising out of same

Judgment of the Trial Court, but then plaintiff as well as defendants had filed

the appeal and those two separate appeals have been decided by two

separate Judgments and therefore, there will not be any hurdle to observe

that learned Advocate Mr. G.K. Thigale (Naik) has argued for the respondent

in Second Appeal No.841 of 2018 also.

Sham S/O. Balbhim Sachane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 May, 2019

On

2. Admit. Learned APP waives notice on behalf

of the respondents. With the consent of learned

Counsel for the parties, appeals are heard finally.

3. These appeals are directed against the

judgments and orders passed by the Special Court

::: Uploaded on – 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 03/05/2019 06:09:29 :::
5 Cri. Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc

constituted for trial of the offences under the

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

(M.C.O.C. Act), rejecting discharge applications

moved by the appellants herein. The appellants are

some of the accused in Special (M.C.O.C.) Case No.4

of 2014.