Mumbai Nagpur Court March 2013 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.
Vivek Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Oral Judgment: [B.R. Gavai, J.] 1] Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] The applicant has filed the present application seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 06.02.2012 lodged by non-applicant no.2 with non-applicant no.1Police Station Officer, Seloo Police Station, DistrictWardha, by which, the crime is registered against the applicant, vide Crime No.12 of 2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 420, 468, 471, 474, 109 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3] The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present application are as under: The applicant is an I.F.S. officer and was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest from 29.09.2006 to 16.08.2010 at Wardha. On 03.05.2006 one Govinda Mahagya Waskar had applied for permission to cut tress on his land to the Range Forest Officer, Hingni. The Range Forest Officer, Hingni, after receipt of the applicatio...
Indian Medical Association Vs. Medical Council of India, Through Its S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-Indian Medical Association, Nagpur, in public interest, challenging the communication dated 28.12.2012 issued by the Board of Governors in supersession of the respondent No.1Medical Council of India (for short, MCI), returning the applications submitted by the respondent No.4 the Dean, Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, for increase of seats in various Post Graduate Courses on the ground that the applications were deficient in Consent of Affiliation, which was required to be submitted along with the said applications on 31.5.2012. The petition further claims a direction to the respondent No.1MCI to process the said applications further in accordance with law. 3. The facts necessary giving rise to the controversy involved in this petition, are stated below : The respondent No.1MCI is a statutory body ...
Dashrath Rajaram Solanke and Others Vs. the Executive Engineer, Chief ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants-employees have questioned the judgment dated 15.10.1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2618/1997 since reported at 1998(3) Mah.L.J. 897 (Executive Engineer vs. Ananta and Others). They were the respondents in the said petition. The learned Single Judge has, in said judgment, found that services of present appellants are not covered under the terms of Kalelkar Award and hence their termination cannot be faulted. However, they are found to be entitled to compensation as per and under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, as retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court earlier had on 4.6.1994 in ULP (Complaint) Nos. 319/1984 to 322/1984 directed the respondent/employer to reinstate these appellants to their formal posts with continuity of service and full back wages. The Industrial Court has dismissed U.L.P. Revision No. 158/1994 filed by the respondent/employer a...
Ashok Kumar S/O Shankarprasad Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through It ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner owner of a motor vehicle having registration No. MZV5876 (Premier Padmini Car) has basically sought to challenge the provisions of Maharashtra Act No. XXX of 2010 dated 21.12.2010 introducing Environment Tax by amending the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act for short). However, during arguments Shri T.D. Mandlekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioner is not pressing the said challenge or question of constitutional validity. The learned Counsel has urged that as the said motor vehicle is incapable of being used on State road, as it is mechanically unfit and is permanently rendered unusable, the same cannot be taxed and hence, demand of arrears of Environment tax on it is, unsustainable. It is pointed out that registration of the vehicle has already expired. 2. Coming to the facts of the case, the learn...
Gajanan Laxminarayan Pedhiwal Vs. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the report of the Grievance Committee dated 9.7.2012 as also the communication issued by the Registrar of the Amravati University dated 12.7.2012, informing the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor has by exercising the power under Section 14 (7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1994 for the sake of brevity) accepted the report of the Grievance Committee, holding that the respondent no.6 was senior to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the College at Washim on 30.11.1992. In the year 1995, the petitioner was declared as surplus in the College at Washim and was absorbed in the respondent no.5 College at Akola. The respondent no.6 was also appointed as a lecturer in the respondent no.5 College at Akola in December, 1997. It is the case of...
Shabina Anjum and Another Vs. Irshad Khan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Oral Judgment: Admitted. Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel. Mr. M.R.Khan, learned counsel is heard on behalf of the applicants and learned Advocate Mr. R.J.Mirza is heard on behalf of the non-applicant. 2. The limited grievance of the applicants is that it was not necessary for the trial Court (Family Court) to frame the following issue in the Application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 :- "1. Whether the non-applicant proves that he had given a legal and valid talaq." Learned counsel for applicants Mr. Khan has submitted that this issue could not have been decided in the proceedings u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for non-applicant Mr. R.J. Mirza has submitted that the decision on this issue had nothing to do with the issue regarding maintenance and findings of the learned Court thereon, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at AIR 2010 SC 305 in the matter of Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan. Learned counsel Mr. Kha...
Smt. Bhavna W/O Ganesh Tarvekar Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Li ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J). 1. Heard finally in the light of order dated 26.2.2013 by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. The said order dated 26.2.2013 reads as under: After hearing respective learned Counsel for the parties for quite sometime, we find that the person placed at Sr. No.1 in empanelment list was given excessive marks though he was not entitled to same and the petitioner was given less marks. Accordingly, after verification of complaint made by the petitioner marks have been corrected. During argument learned Counsel Mr. Meghe for the respondents has submitted that select list was displayed without complied with of Rule 18, the merits panel was not scrutinized by a Senior Officer of the respondents. It is, therefore, obvious that merits panel to which the petitioner raised objection itself was not scrutinized by the Senior Officer. In this situation, placing the other person at Sr. No.1 cannot be said to be decisive. The said Senior Officer ought...
Mohankumar Khushal PaThe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (R.C. Chavan, J.) Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition seeks quashing of charge-sheet filed in Crime No.178 of 2001 before the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Chandrapur bearing Criminal Case No.458 of 2001. The charge-sheet came to be filed pursuant to report made by respondent no.2. The parties had also filed some proceedings before the Family Court in which settlement was reached. In terms of Clause 8 of the settlement, the respondent no.2 was supposed to withdraw the proceedings pending in the criminal court. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that respondent has no objection to the petition being allowed. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No.452 of 2001 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs....
Ganesh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
Oral Judgment:(P.B. Varale, J.) By the present appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused), is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. The appellant-accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2] Heard Ms. Shiwang Murthy, learned counsel (appointed) for the appellant and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 3] The prosecution case can be summarized as follows : The report was lodged by complainant Pramod Shalikrao Dhote (P.W.1) at Police Station, Babhulgaon on 12.09.2003. It is stated in the report that the complainant is residing with his family members namely his mother, father and brother. It is further stated that as his family owns some animal husbandry/cattle namely she-buffallows, ...
Rajendra S/O Ramaji Mahisbadwe Vs. the Joint Commissioner and Vice Cha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination dated 03.11.2009, passed by Respondent no.2 Additional General Manager/Engineering LMD National Aviation Company of India Limited. Though in the petition, order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, has also been questioned, the petitioner has only claimed protection in employment and expressly restricted his challenge only to the order of termination and has given up the status as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Right to challenge order invalidating caste certificate is given up with knowledge that Respondent Employer as also Caste Scrutiny Committee are opposing the prayer for protection. This protection in service is being claimed on the basis of various judgments, particul...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »