Mumbai Nagpur Court October 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Surjit Fulchand Khandke, Aged About 23 Yrs, and ors. Vs. Vinod Shamrao ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1] Criminal appeal No. 712 of 2004 is arising out of judgment and order dated 21st September 2004 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur, passed in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2003 in which present two appellants, one more accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.2] Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2006 is arising out of another impugned judgment and order dated 9th May 2006 passed by same Court, (2nd Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur). This judgment and order was passed in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2005 and Sessions Trial No. 306 of 2005 which were clubbed together in which appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2006 were facing trial.3] These criminal appeals are arising out of the same incident of assault and murder of deceased Damu. However, there were three sessions trials in which respective accused as mentioned above, faced the trial. In...
Deepak @ Oharilal Joshi, Aged About 20 Years, and ors. Vs. the State o ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Present criminal appeal is preferred by all the six accused against the judgment and order of conviction passed by 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The impugned judgment and order was passed in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 2002 on 6th December 2004. By the said judgment and order, all the six accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The major punishment awarded against the appellants/accused is that of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and six months and fine of Rs. 500/- for offences each under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused were, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 37 (1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The State of Maharas...
Kailash Bholanath Dhengle, Vs. the Education Officer (Sec.), and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16/9/2010 issued by the Headmaster thereby placing the petitioner under suspension.3. Shri Shende, learned counsel for petitioner, has submitted that the Headmaster had no authority to suspend the petitioner because such power is vested with the management under sub-rule 1 of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 which runs as follows "35. Conditions of suspension.(1) In cases where the Management desires to suspend an employee, he shall be suspended only with the prior approval of the appropriate authority mentioned in rule 33."4. Subrule 1 of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 contemplates that an employee can be suspended with the prior approval of the appropriate authority "where the Management desires to suspend an employee". This shows that the real authority t...
Ujwala Wd/O Uday Pimple, Aged About 41 Yrs., Vs. the Maharashtra Fishe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. The respondents have terminated the service of the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation (MFDC) Service Regulations by offering one month's pay in lieu of notice. The only ground for termination of services of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 22/2/2010 in pursuance of an advertisement dated 29/9/2009 and that she had already crossed the age of 33 years which was the age limit imposed in the advertisement.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination is bad since there are no rules prescribing the maximum age limit for appointment and that in the advertisement the respondents arbitrarily imposed the age limit of 33 years. There is no merit in this argument because it is open to an employee to impose an age limit in the advertisement even if there is no age limit prescribed in the Regulations. In any case the pet...
Dilip S/O Kisanrao Khasbage, Aged About 35 Years, Vs. Leeladhar S/O Pa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-15-2010
1. In present petition filed as writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner Plaintiff has challenged the order dated 15/2/2010 passed below Ex. 101 by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warud, rejecting his application to transfer Regular Civil Suit No. 119/2000 filed by him for specific performance along with counterclaim of Defendants for his eviction, for possession and damages to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. The transfer is sought by pointing out claim in suit valued at Rs.70,600/ and claim in counterclaim valued at Rs.40,000/ together being above Rs. One lac, exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of court of Junior Division. Trial Court has found that immovable property involved in specific performance and in eviction or recovery of possession proceedings is same and can not be clubbed or added again to determine its jurisdiction. Notice for final disposal is already issued by this Court. Hence, heard finally by making Rule r...
Shri Deorao Bhuraji Wasule, Aged About 62 Years, and ors. Vs, Smt. Rag ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 25.08.1983 passed in Change Report Inquiry No. 612 of 1983 in the matter of a Public Trust. By said orders, the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur Region, Nagpur, working under Respondent No. 4 herein has held that property shown as property of Public Trust by name Gupta Dharamshala deserved to be deleted from the Register of Public Trust maintained by the office of Respondent No. 4 and has further observed that as there is no property of Trust, the Trust comes to an end. The entries of the Trust made in the Public Trust register were also directed to be deleted. This order was challenged initially before the Division Bench and the petition was entertained as Public Interest Litigation. On 28.12.2004, this Court granted interim relief and restrained present Respondents No. 1 & 2 from carrying on any construction activities on the site of Gupta Dharamshala. This interim order...
Anil S/O Narsingrao Khule, Aged About 34 Years, Vs. Assistant Commissi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-11-2010
1. This Court has issued Notice for final disposal and accordingly I have heard Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent. Matter is heard finally by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith, by consent of parties.2. Challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order of Labour Court, Akola dated 14.01.2000 dismissing ULPA Complaint No. 295/1995 filed by the present petitioner and the subsequent judgment dated 02.01.2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Akola dismissing the ULP Revision No.11/2000 preferred under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act.3. Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that after the petitioner entered the service, the terms and conditions of the appointment order became irrelevant and Service Rules were determinative. No show cause notice or any opportunity was given to the petitioner and for not disclosing the p...
Keshavrao Champatrao Khope, Aged About 57 Years, Vs. Election Returnin ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
1. The matter is finally heard by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith by consent of Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for Petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 12 and Shri Bobde, learned Counsel for respondent no.11. As only legal question needs to be decided, narration of facts separately is not necessary.2. Petitioner, a defeated candidate is challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the District Judge, Akola (Division at Washim) in Election Petition No.11/2008, dismissing it. Said Election Petition is under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.3. Shri Khapre, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has contended that the prayer made by the petitioner for recount on 02.12.2006 was accepted and recount could not be completed as in relation to votes cast at 2 polling centres i.e. Kajleshwar 5 and Kajleshwar 6, electronic voting machine (EVM) showed memory error. The Returning Officer has overlooked this aspect and...
Radheshyam S/O Zumbarlal Chandak, Aged About 60 Years, Vs. the Distric ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. This writ petition is placed before us to decide the following question of law, upon reference being made by the learned Single Judge (Shri B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) as per his order dated 26-4-2010 : "Whether the Court invested with small cause powers under Section 28 of 1869 Act can function as such and exercise unlimited jurisdiction under Chapter IV A-1 of 1887 Act, without any ceiling on its pecuniary jurisdiction ?2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, Shri M.S. Deshpande, J. (as he then was), in his judgment in Salimkhan s/o Azimkhan v. Mohammad Ibrahimkhan, reported in 1987 Mh.L.J. 283, has taken the view that a Civil Judge, Senior Division, invested with the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by the High Court under Section 28 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, has jurisdiction to try the suits or proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant irrespective of the value of the subject-matter of such suits or proceedings, as contemplated by ...
Kalpesh Hemantbhai Shah, Aged 29 Years, Vs. Manhar Auto Sotres, and or ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. Heard. Admit on the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal.2. In the present letters patent appeal there is a challenge to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2010 in W.P. No. 5521 of 2009 by which the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed. The counsel for the respondents, Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present letters patent appeal in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (7) SCALE 428 decided on 23.7.2010. Since the preliminary objection was raised to the above effect relying on the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court, we have heard both the learned counsel for the parties on the said preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the letters patent appeal.3. In support of the preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents made the following submissions(i) The subject matter of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »