Mumbai Nagpur Court December 2012 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.
Tushar Babanrao Deshmukh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 25/9/2012 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.560/2011, thereby dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. 3) For appreciating the controversy, it will be necessary to refer to the factual background in the present matter, which is somewhat lengthy. An advertisement came to be issued by the respondent Maharashtra Public Service Commission on 27/6/2008, thereby inviting applications for the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police (Motor Transport) Group `A'. The requisite qualification that was provided in the advertisement was a Degree of recognized University or Diploma of recognized Institute in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering. Insofar as experience requirement is concerned, it was provi...
Bhavikkumar Shriramji Tandale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Oral Judgment: ( B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Petitioners challenge common judgment and order dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Original Applications No. 261 of 2009 to 288 of 2009 dismissing the said original applications. The petitioners had challenged order dated 24.4.2009 issued by respondent Dean and Chairman, Selection committee, Ayhurvedic College and Hospital, Nagpur, thereby terminating their services with effect from 24.4.2009. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of these petitions are as under : That, respondent no. 2, after approval of respondent no. 1, had advertised total 35 posts as under : Sr.No. Name of Post No. of Payscale PostsSr.No.Name of PostNo. of PostsPay-scale1.Peon42550-55-2600-60-32002.Ward Attendant252550-55-2600-60-32003.Asst. Cook22550-55-2600-60-32004.X-Ray Assistant12550-55-2600-60-32005.Rasshala Sevak12550-55-2600-60-32006.Washerman12610-60-2910-65-3300-70-40007.Barber12610-60-2910-65-3300-70-...
Pupul Son of Chandrakant Borkar and Others Vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Oral Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1] Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2] Since the questions of law and fact are common in all these petitions, the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by passing the common judgment. 3] All the petitioners are the students and they had appeared for the Summer 2012 examination conducted by the respondent-University. The results of the petitioners were declared in the months of June-July-2012. Since the petitioners felt that the results did not depict their real performance, the petitioners applied for supply of photostat copies as provided under Direction 9 issued by the University. The petitioners, after the receipt of the Photostat copies, challenged the valuation, as provided under Clause 9 of the said Directions. Since, in case of all the petitioners along with all other students, the result of challenge to valuation was declared as No change, the petition...
Sharad Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Buldana and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. Heard Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nitin Rode, learned APP for respondents. Learned Addl.P.P. Mr. Nitin Rode prays for time to file reply. However, in my considered opinion, reply is not needed inasmuch as the issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner can be decided on the basis of material available in the impugned order itself. 3. The order impugned by the petitioner in this petition has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Buldana in exercise of his powers under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. It is further stated in the impugned order that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Buldana had earlier submitted two proposals dated 17th February, 2009 and 22nd April, 2011. It is stated in the impugned order that after having gone through the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the SDM had come to the conclusion that the proposal for externment of...
Chandanlal Ratanlal Lilhare (Through Legal Representatives) Vs. Khemra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Sh. B.N. Mohta, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.42 of 1989 filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court for refund of earnest money of Rs.5,175/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of Rs.12 per cent per annum from 11-6-1979 till its realization on 25-8-1993. Regular Civil Appeal No.75 of 1993 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gondia by its Judgment and order dated 7-12-1994. Hence, this Second Appeal by the original defendant No.3. 3. On 6-3-1995 this Court admitted the appeal and passed an order framing the substantial question of law as under - "This second appeal raises the following substantial question of law : "Whether in the absence of any privity of contract between plffs. and defendant no.3, the Courts below were justified in directing deft. no.3 to refund amount of the consideration relating to agreement between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2? Admit. Issue not...
Abdul Salim Vs. Smt.Rabiya Parveen
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Mohammad Ateeque, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. A.V. Khare, learned Advocate for respondent. 2. Admitted. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The applicant is admittedly the husband of non-applicant Rabiya Parveen. The non-applicant has filed an Application before the Family Court for grant of maintenance u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is the resident of village Deoli, Tah.Deoli, Dist. Wardha. The non-applicant Mrs. Rabiya Parveen's parents are resident of Amravati. During the course of pendency of the Application for grant of maintenance, the Family Court has granted interim maintenance to the non-applicant. Written statement has been filed by the applicant in response to the application filed by the non-applicant before the Family Court for grant of maintenance. In the said written statement, a preliminary objection is raised regarding jurisdiction of Nagpur Court to hear the application of the non-applicant. 4. Learned Advocate Mr...
Vinod S/O. Amrut Malkhede Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Oral Judgment: The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2012 viz. Vinod Malkhede has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 and also for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2012 viz. Santosh Vairagade has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) and 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants were tried in Special Case No.15 of 2010 for the above stated offences and have been convicted as stated above. 2. The victim of the offence is a lady by name Sunanda Dashrath Zade who was aged about 40 years at the time of incident. The incident had occurred in the night intervening 10th and 11th of May, 2010. The complainant/ prosecutrix is resident of village Lakkadkot in Tahsil: Rajura. She had gone to Rajura for selling vegetables in the evening of 10th May, 2010. While returning to her native place at Lakkadkot she was waiting for a bus on...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mirabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Oral Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 02.02.2000, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.133/1992. 2. On 07.03.1992, the tractor trolley owned by original respondent no.2 (his LRs respondent no.(i) to (iv) herein) and driven by respondent no.1 met with an accident while transporting the stones. Parshuram, the deceased who was working as a labourer and traveling in the tractor trolley, sustained injuries and succumbed to them. The vehicle was insured with original respondent no.3 appellant herein. The deceased left behind him widow and the minor son. They are the original petitioners and respondent nos.1 and 2 herein. 3. Respondent no.3 claimed that he was not negligent or rash while driving the vehicle. Respondent No.4, stated that he had obtained the policy to cover the liability arising in respect of injury or death of the labourer. According to him, the deceased was travelling in t...
Jagjeet Singh S/O Chandan Singh Kalsi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. R.S. Renu for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. M.P. Badar for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. 3. The question which may come up for determination in the present criminal application is that as to whether the property seized by the officer empowered under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 becomes the Government property immediately after the seizure thereof. In the present case, Truck No. MH31DS2030 belonging to the applicant was seized during the investigation of P.O.R. No.67/2008 by the competent Forest Officer. It was alleged that the said Truck loaded with 320 bags of cement was intercepted on 29th February, 2012 near Rajura Town. It is the case of prosecution that a carcass of spotted-deer, truck and cement bags were seized under the panchanama. An offence vide P.O.R. No.67/2008 dated 29th February, 2012 was registered at the office of Range Forest Officer, Rajura for alleged contravention of provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) A...
Pradeepkumar Chandrakant Shroti Vs. Salim Khan Aashique Khan (Zaduwala ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr A.M. Ghare for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. V.M. Deshpande for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are independent of the civil suit filed by the applicant. They are also independent of the civil suit, if any, filed by the non-applicant for declaration of notice issued to the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be bad in law. Therefore, there could not have been any stay on the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati cannot be sustained. Criminal Applications are allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge on 8th March, 2011 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.69, 70 and 71 of 2010 is set aside. Ad inte...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »