Mumbai Nagpur Court September 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.
Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-29-2011
1. Five petitioners before us have challenged the judgment delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 719 of 1997 on 15.1.1999 rejecting their prayer for direction to respondents to extend to them the pay0scale of Rs. 3700-5700 by treating them as Head of the Department. It is not in dispute that all five petitioners have been duly selected and appointed as Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic College under respondents no. 1 and 2 prior to 20th September 1989. 2. Mr Dangre while advancing the cause of petitioner has contended that only defence before the Tribunal raised by respondents no. 1 and 2 was that post of Workshop Superintendent is not a teaching post. He points out that norms issued by respondent no. 3 All India Council for Technical Education constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "1987 Act") were not in dispute and its binding effect was shown by respondent no. 3...
Late Narayanlal Bansilal and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. Judgment dated 31/12/1999 delivered by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Reference proceedings land acquisition case 13 of 1988 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act" for short), is assailed by both parties i.e., the landowners as also acquiring authority in these appeals under Section 54 thereof. Said reference arose out of award dated 16/7/1987 in L.A.C. 3/LAQ- 47/83/84 made by the Land Acquisition Officer for and on behalf State of Maharashtra. Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published on 19/2/1984. While admitting First Appeal No. 53/2001 filed by State, this Court on 12/2/2001 granted stay in terms of prayer clause (I) of Civil Application No.656/2001 on appellant- State depositing decreed amount with Trial Court within period of 8 weeks. That order continues to operate even today. 2. Civil Application (F) No. 2282/2011 is taken out by landowners pointing out death of appellant no.4 on 4th Augu...
Union of India and ors. Vs. M. M. Rangari and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The short question that falls for consideration in this Petition is whether the employees of Ordanance Factories the Petitioner-Union of India, viz., the Ordanance factory Board are entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) after they had constructed their own respective houses by arranging loans and after shifting to their own accommodation on the ground that they have not obtained "non-availability Certificate" in respect of official residential accommodation . The answer must be given in the negative for the following reasons. 3. It is not in dispute that Employees who have applied for allotment of Government accommodation from the General pool of residential accommodation and have not been allotted their entitled type of accommodation due to non-availability of the accommodation would be entitled to claim House Rent Allowance(HRA). The submission made on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Central government Employees who are offered...
Niraj Vikas Pabale and ors. Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. This writ petition is entertained as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 30/10/2007. Briefly stated, the grievance is about an activity in the shape of an educational institute and a students hostel in residential area. It is alleged that the construction is raised without legal sanction from the competent authority. Respondent No. 5 before this Court is that institute while Respondent No. 4 is the Gram Panchayat which claims to have sanctioned the same under Section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act,1958, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 Act" for short). Respondent no. 6 is the Zilla Parishad which can control/suspend actions/resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat in this respect. At one time it was the stand of authorities that Standardized building bye laws for B and C class municipal councils prescribed under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships Act (40 of 1965) needed to be followed (...
Maroti S/O Domaji Sadmake Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. The accused, who has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for further period of six months, has filed this appeal. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows :- (i) The prosecutrix, aged about 12 years, was a student of 4th standard in Bhagvantrao Ashram Shala, Gatta, and was residing in the hostel of that school. The accused was In-charge Head Master of the said school at the relevant time. The examination of 4th standard was over. Some students had returned back home but some including the prosecutrix were still in the hostel. (ii) On 16/4/1996 at about 8.00 p.m. the prosecutrix had gone out of the hostel premises for answering the nature's call. She had requested her two friends to accompany her but the accused told her to go alone. (iii) While the prosecutrix was returning back,...
Pix Transmissions Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. The petitioner-employer has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of Reference dated 21.1.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 and referring the controversy to the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur. The said Reference as reproduced in Schedule appended to the order dated 21.1.2010 is reproduced below : "Whether the members of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union working in M/s General Manager, Pix Transmission Limited, J-7, MIDC, Nagpur are entitled for payment of minimum wages as per notification dated 16.4.2007 with arrears ?" 2. The challenge raised is basically on the ground that entire controversy as presented to respondent no. 2 has not been placed for consideration before the Industrial Court and petitioner/employer is, therefore, precluded from pointing out that the demand of minimum wages as raised is itself erroneous and misconceived. It is further urged that as wages are being paid at a rate which is more than the rate of minimum...
Ramesh S/O Danchand Waswani Vs. Yusufbhai Mukhtar Amir Varawalla
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. The tenant has questioned order dated 02.05.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 434/2011 and the judgment dated 28.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.132/2011, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Writ Petition was filed by the appellant / tenant challenging concurrent judgments and decrees of his eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1999 Act" for short) and the Appellate Court confirming it. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of tenant that both the Courts below have not considered whether partial eviction of tenant from premises would meet the needs of respondent / landlord. This requirement of Section 16[2] of the 1999 Act, is found to be not satisfied, hence the matter came to be remanded to the Appellate Court for recording additional evidence, if any, and to decide it after giving parties due opportunity. 2. This judgment dated 28.02.2011 was then questioned in Misc. ...
Prakash S/O Budha Balbudhe Vs. Dinesh S/O Baburao Madavi
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1.Heard. 2. This is an application for grant of leave to file appeal against order dated 7/6/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arjuni (Morgaon) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 547 of 2007, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be dismissed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of absence of the complainant and his Advocate and for not taking steps for a long time for securing the presence of the accused. 3. Perused the copy of the complaint and the impugned order. 4. The impugned order, as argued by the learned Advocate for the applicant, is not on merit but is an order of dismissal for default. 5. Considering that this is a technical dismissal under Section 256 Cri.P.C., leave to file appeal against the impugned order is granted. Appeal be registered and numbered, accordingly. 6. Admit. 7. Mr. R. M. Pande, learned Advocate waives service of notice for sole ...
Sheikh Abdullah Son of Sheikh Hafizullah Vs. Dr Husnaara Parveen Wife ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. Present appeal is preferred by appellant-husband against the judgment and order dated 14th June 2001 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur dismissing his petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Appeal has not come up for final hearing out of chronology. However, in view of Civil Application No. 2386 of 2001 filed by appellant-husband for grant of stay as, according to appellant, respondent-wife is getting married on 16th September 2011, instead of deciding civil application alone, appeal itself has been taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order and other material on record. 3. The case of the appellant is that respondent is cousin of appellant and they were residing at Bhutiya Darwaza, near Masjid, Nagpur. They fell in love with each other and their love affair blossomed into their agreement to enter the marital tie. It is averred in the petition that somewhere in the month o...
Wainganga Bahu-uddeshiya Vikas Sanstha and ors. Vs. Anil S/O Dewaji Ga ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. Rule in all the Petitions, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petitions take exception to the Judgment and Orders of the College Tribunal by which the Tribunal has set aside the termination orders passed against the Respondents-Lecturers in Writ Petition Nos.1301/11, 1314/11 and 1315/11 on the ground that the enquiry held against the Respondents-Lecturers in the said Petitions has been vitiated. The Tribunal in the course of adjudication of the said proceedings has also held that prior permission of the University is not required to be taken for the termination of the Respondents, as the Respondents are not confirmed employees. The aforesaid three Petitions have been filed by the Management challenging the orders of the Tribunal in so far as it sets aside the termination orders passed against each of the Respondents on the ground that the departmental enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »