Mumbai Nagpur Court October 2011 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.
Madhukar Govindrao Thaware and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. Taken up for hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing . Heard submissions. This Writ Petition is preferred in respect of an order dated 5th January 2011 passed by Debts Recovery appellate Tribunal , Mumbai and an order dated 17th March 2009 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur whereby it is held that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act ( Briefly referred as RDDBFI Act ). The question raised is as to whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act or its principles are applicable to appeal filed under section 30 of the RDDBFI Act. 2. The facts which gave rise to filing of the writ petition may be summed as under:- The Petitioners are owners of Apartments in the building known as 'Jupiter Complex' Situated at Vaishali Nagar, Binaki, Nagpur. The Petitioners claim that they were handed over possession of their respective apartments in the building pursua...
Ramesh S/O Shri Rambhauji Majrikar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. Due to limited arguments and controversy presented before us which centers around scope and relevance of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ( hereafter referred to as "the Act No. 23 of 2001" for short) in present matters, we state facts having bearing on it briefly. Both the petitioners are real brothers and by identical orders passed on 25/06/2007, the Caste Scrutiny Committee functioning under above Act has invalidated their caste claim and confiscated their caste certificates as belonging to Halba scheduled tribe. It has also directed their discharge from employment and recovery of benefits derived by them because of said caste certificates. It has also authorized Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Vigilance Cell with it to lodge complaint in the form of FIR with concerned police station ...
Dr. Surendra Ramlal Tiwari and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. By this petition, the challenge is to action of Respondent No. 2 in allotting land reserved for Primary School, Secondary School and Playground to Respondent No. 4 - Educational Institution/ Trust. The petition has been accepted as Public Interest Litigation as per orders of the learned Senior Judge on 02.12.2010 and on 06.12.2010 notices were issued to the other side. 2. The facts briefly stated are : The reservation is on Khasra No. 12 of Mouza - Bhamti included in Bhamti Parsodi Street Scheme of Nagpur Improvement Trust (respondent 2 herein) and as per Development Plan sanctioned in the year 2001, it has reservation No. SW 164 for Primary School on area 0.176 H. Reservation No. SW 165 is on Area 0.352 H. for secondary School and reservation No. MSW 16 for playground is 1.1136 H. The remaining reservation is for 9 mtrs. x 12 mtrs. wide road and residential purpose. 3. The prayers in the petition are to quash an advertisement dated 29.03.2010 with its corrigendum issued later and t...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Smt. Pratibha Kashinath Gajbhiye and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for rival parties. In these three appeals, judgment and Award dated 24.9.2010 passed by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Amravati, in Application (WCA) No. 8/2005, 9/2005 and 10/2005 are under challenge. 2. By the impugned judgment and Award, the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act awarded compensation to the respondents/employees with interest at 12% per annum from 15.12.2004, i.e. after a month from the date of accident- 14.11.2004. 3. In support of appeals, Mr.Kasat, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the compensation would fall due only when the Commissioner makes an application as to whether the accident took place, whether the workman was entitled to compensation, and whether the employer or any other person was responsible to make payment of compensation. According to him, unless the same is adjudicated, the compensation will not fall due and, therefore, on the...
Lubhan Gopal Nikhare Vs. Sau. Sandhya W/O Lubhan Nikhare
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
1. This is an application filed by the father of the appellant seeking permission to prosecute the present appeal and for bringing him on record in place of his son- original appellant, who expired during the pendency of this appeal. 2. This application has been vehemently opposed by the respondent/wife and reply has also been filed. Placing reliance on the decision of supreme Court in the case of Smt. Yallawwa v. Smt. Shuntavva - AIR 1997 SC 35 learned counsel for the respondent/wife argued that the appellant/husband Lubhan having expired during the pendency of present appeal and the subject matter of the appeal being the proceedings for divorce between husband and wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty, the cause was purely a personal cause of action and, therefore, the same would die with the husband. He then argued that the respondent/ wife has one child and at any rate on merits of the matter there is no substance in the present appeal as the decree of dismissal of divorce pe...
Mangal S/O Tularam Warkhade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
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. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR /home/lichade/judgments/UVB/apeal242.08+.odt 3/18 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 t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›