Mumbai Nagpur Court June 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.
Murlidhar Deosthan Bamarda Vs. the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 14/06/2010 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, by which the application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. The subject-matter of the application under Section 36(1)(a) of the said Act was land bearing field Survey No.101 of village Bamarda, Tq.Warora, Distt.Chandrapur. The said land was sought to be sold by the Trust on the ground that there is no yield from the land nor any income can be applied to the Trust and since Sabha Mandap and Deosthan were to be constructed, there was a necessity to sell the said land. 3. Pursuant to the tenders invited, the Trustee concerned received three tenders wherein the highest price offered by the bidder was Rs.10,00,000/-. It was, therefore, the case of the Trustee ...
Shri (Dr.) Mahendra S/O Bhaurao Kaikade Vs. Sau.Ranjana W/O Mahendra K ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 14/02/2011, by which order the application Exh.5 came to be allowed and maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month each to the respondent-wife and the two children came to be granted. 3. The petitioner herein is a Medical Practitioner having general practice at Talasari, which is in rural Thane. Though it was alleged by the respondent herein that the income of the petitioner was Rs.1,00,000/- per month, the Trial Court has fixed the interim maintenance at Rs.10,500/- in aggregate. The learned counsel Shri B.G.Kulkarni on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he had fairly stated before the Family Court that his client i.e. the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.7500/- as maintenance in aggregate for the respondent/wife and the two school going children. In my view, considering the fact that...
Anandt Hiraman Ghatole Vs. Sau. Nirmala Dinesh Hazara and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. H Lingayat, for respondent no.1. I have also patiently heard respondent no.3, party-in-person, who is personally present and made submissions on his behalf as well as respondent no.2. 3. The petition questions the order as to issuance of process dated 25.3.2009 passed by learned first Judicial Magistrate, First Class Chandrapur in Complaint Case No. 129/2009. The facts of the case as they stand are these : It appears that one Sau. Nirmala Dinesh Hazara by occupation a teacher, resident of Shivaji Chowk, Chandrapur, lodged the complaint alleging that she had married with Dinesh Hazara, some 20 years prior to her marriage and have begotten two sons namely, Shreenath, aged about 19 years and Loknath, aged about 16 years out of the said wedlock. She is residing with her husband Dinesh since her marriage. The accused no.1-Anant Hiraman Ghatole (pe...
The Municipal Council Vs. Arvind S/O Keshavrao Bhusari and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Judgment and Order dated 29th September, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Complaint (ULP) No.47 of 2006 is the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.105 of 2010 and the Judgment and order dated 29th September, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Complaint (ULP) No.47 of 2006 is the subject-matter of challenge in W.P.No.106 of 2011. The petitioner -Municipal Council has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Since common issue arises in view of the final direction, which has been issued in the operative part of the impugned judgments and orders, the above petitions are taken up for hearing together and disposed of as such. 4. For the sake of convenience, facts in above Writ Petition No.105 of 2010 would be narrated. The petitioner is a Municipal Council, established under the provisions of Mahara...
Harish S/O Ratanlal Alimchandani Vs. Brijlal S/O Zamandas Nenwani and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-19-2011
01) This petition challenges the order passed below Exh.6-A i.e. the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2010. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Washim, has allowed the application for amendment. 02) The notice for final disposal of the matter was issued on 1.9.2010 and the proceedings of the Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2010 were stayed.03) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.04) Shri A.K.Chaube, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant no.1 has urged that the Trial Court has allowed the application for amendment without even issuing notice. He has further urged that by way of amendment, the entire nature of the suit is changed. The suit was initially for partition and separate possession of the property, but by way of amendment, the relief of specific performance of agreement dated 25.3.2005 has also been added. Thus, there is change in the n...
Mohd. Raza Hasan S/O Sufi Abdul Azia Durani Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for hearing with consent of learned Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Mehroz Pathan, APP for the respondent no.1 and Mr. A.M. Rizwy, Advocate for the respondent no2. 3. The petitioner questioned the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Complaint No.5314/2008. The following order passed by learned Trial Court is as under: Read the complaint, verification of the complainant and documents filed by the complainant on record. Heard Advocate Mr. Rizvi for the complainant. On perusal of the complaint and verification of the complainant, it seems that the complainant have made out the prima facie substance for issuance of process for the offence punishable under sections 504, 506 and 509 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, issue summons to accused no.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 504,...
Ek Lakh Khan and ors. Vs.District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societ ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 15/4/2011 passed by the District Deputy Registrar by which order the representation of the petitioners for appointment of the Administrator under Section 15A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for brevity referred to as 'said Act') came to be disposed of by holding that the implicit in the fact of postponement of the elections of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), Ghatanji is the extension of tenure of the Managing Committee. 3. The facts, which are necessary to be stated for adjudication of the above petition can gainfully be stated thus - The petitioners are the Members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ghatanji. The elections to the said Market Committee had taken place some time in the year 2006 and the...
Smt Munni W/O Kita @ Kesu Dhanvat Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner questions the orders dated 26/11/2010 and 14/01/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Crime no.4280 of 2010, under Section 3, 4,5,and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ("PITA" in short ) and the order dated 14/02/2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2011 under section 17 (6) of PITA dismissing the Appeal. 3. The Lakadganj Police Station, Nagpur raided the infamous Red light area known as 'Ganga Jamuna' and rescued some girls from the alleged brothel on 25/11/2010. They were treated as victims and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no 3, Nagpur, who directed the Investigating Officer to produce rescued victims under PITA before Child Welfare Board and to conduct their medical examination through Medical Officer by 08/12/2010 for carrying out age determination, and to determine whether they were suffering from ...
M/S. Top Notch Infotronix (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Infosoft Systems and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
This is an application under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (24th Court), Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No.13119/2008. Mr. Dawada, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. According to him proviso to section 372, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2008 (for short Act of 2008), which came into force with effect from 31st of December 2009, the forum for appeal would be the Sessions Court and not the High Court. Proviso to section 372 reads as under :- "Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of co...
Shri Pruthviraj S/O Parmeshwarlal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The short question, which arises for consideration in the above writ petition is as to whether on remand the concerned Authority, i.e. Collector is entitled to consider the issue of suspension of licence or remand is restricted only to consideration of imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/- levied on the petitioner and also whether the Collector would be entitled to take into consideration the facts, which have transpired after the order was passed by the Hon'ble Minister. 3) The conspectus of the facts involved in the above writ petition can be stated thus : The petitioner is holding a CL-III licence, which has been issued to him for conducting the same at village Pinjar, Taluq Barshitakli, District Akola, on the allegation that he has sold country liquor bottle of 180 ml worth Rs.17.80 at Rs.18/-, thus selling at higher price of 0.20 paise, a show cause notice came to be issued to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »