Mumbai Nagpur Court April 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.
The Commissioner, Akola Municipal Corporation Vs. Bhalchandra S/O Govi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1. In Regular Civil Suit No.902 of 2012 challenging the communication dated 3-10-2012 and the notice dated 29-10-2012 issued by the applicant/defendant Akola Municipal Corporation under Sections 260 and 267 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, calling upon the non-applicant/plaintiff to furnish an explanation as to why an unauthorized construction carried out by him should not be pulled down, the Trial Court, on 4-1-2013, has rejected the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by an order dated 4-1-2013, claiming dismissal of suit on the ground that there is a bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section of the said Act to entertain, try and decide the suit. Hence, the original defendant Akola Municipal Corporation has preferred this civil revision application. 2. Though the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act are referred to in the communication and the notice challenged in the suit, the learned counsels appearing fo...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Dnyandeo Sadashiv Gawande and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Shri C.S. Samudra for the petitioner, learned Counsel Shri H.R. Gadhia for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.S. Fulzele for respondent No.3. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were summoned by the learned Magistrate to answer the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the petitioner Bank of Baroda, Akola Branch that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had taken loan from the bank to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- by mortgaging the property, which was already mortgaged to Akola Urban Co-operative Bank, A.P.M.C. Branch, Akola. The learned Magistrate after hearing the petitioner found prima facie case for the offences of forgery and cheating. He also found prima facie case of using forged document as genuine document and accordingly issued process. 4. The said order of ...
Milind and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (R.C. Chavan, J.) This application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. 2. This application is filed by accused Milind s/o Rambhau Ingle and Sau. Chhaya w/o Milind Ingle mentioned in the charge-sheet which came to be filed on investigation into the report of respondent no.2. The applicants are the sister-in-law of respondent no.2 and sister-in-law's husband. In this case, initially the Investigating Officer was permitted to complete investigation but was directed not to file charge-sheet without the leave of the Court. However, he did so and, therefore, we have the advantage of going through the charge-sheet for the purpose of deciding this application. The applicants were not residing with the respondent no.2 or her husband. There were some short spells of respondent no.2's stay with the applicants. All the allegations made against the present applica...
Rajendra Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (Prasanna B. Varale, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. By the present petition, the convict/petitioner is challenging the show cause notices issued by the respondent no.3 as well as the order of proposed punishment passed against him. The controversy involved in the present petition is limited to the proposed punishment awarded to the convict/petitioner for his overstaying and surrendering late to the Jail Authorities after availing the parole leave. It is the submission of the learned counsel Mr. Samundre that though the petitioner, who availed parole leave, surrendered/returned late to the jail on his own accord, had submitted his explanation to the Jail Authorities for his late surrendering. The notices issued against the convict/petitioner and the proposed punishment for late surrendering, as reflected in the notices which is annexed to the reply filed by the State at page 25 Annexure R-III and page 33 Annexure R-...
Ajitpalsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (R.C. Chavan, J.) This petition was directed to be listed for final hearing at admission stage by order dated 1.3.2013 and accordingly, it has been finally heard at admission stage. 2. The petitioner has questioned the orders passed by the respondent no.2 Commissioner of Police, Amravati and maintained upon appeal by respondent no.1 Government of Maharashtra rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of an arms licence. The petitioner had first applied for getting arms licence on 26.11.2001. This application was rejected by order dated 2.8.2003 mentioning that after perusal of the application and enquiry conducted by the officers, the prayer was rejected. The petitioner applied to the State Government which remitted the matter back by order dated 17.6.2009. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajapeth Division recommended to the Police Commissioner by letter dated 3.6.2010 that the petitioner should be granted an arms licence. However, again by one line order dated 2...
Sohel Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. J.M. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr.S.S. Doiphode, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. This Revision impugns the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.51/2009 of Nagpur District. The said Appeal was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.237/2008 on 7th March, 2009. Both the applicants were convicted for the offences punishable under section 489-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489-C read with sec. 34 of the IPC. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, on each of the count. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It was contended before the Appellate Court that since all the Panch witnesses were hostile, the evidence of the Investigating Officer should have been examined with great caution and care....
Aman Shah HussaIn Shah and Others Vs. the Chief Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Tathod, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sahu, Advocate holding for Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Kariya, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 7. 2. The petitioners, who are working on clock hour basis, rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Piara Singh and Ors., reported at (1992) 4 SCC 118, to urge that they cannot be substituted by another set of ad-hoc employees and they should be continued in service till the regularly selected candidates report for work. The support is being taken from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Vitthalrao Kamble vs. Government of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 505. 3. The respective counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the petitioners are not ad-hoc employees and they were w...
Al-millat Muslim Welfare Society Vs. Municipal Council, Kamptee and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioner, a Society, seeks relief of direction to respondent Authorities to grant licence in respect of a slaughter house on land survey number 22/5, PH No. 19, mouza Ajni, tahsil Kamptee, District Nagpur in accordance with the provisions of Section 268 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Act). 3. Mr Hussain, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that provisions of Section 268 of the 1965 Act empower respondent no. 1 Municipal Council to grant permission or licence for establishment of municipal slaughter house or a private slaughter house. He further states that petitioner had applied for building permission to Gram Panchayat, Ajni (respondent no. 3) within whose area such slaughter house is to come up. He submits that in view of provisions relating to deemed sanction contained under Section ...
Anil S/O Govindrao Shirkhedkar Vs. Babanrao Ganpatrao Wadaskar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati, by the judgment and order dated 14-8-2000 passed in Application No.31 of 2000, filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 9 under sub-section (1) of Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the BPT Act), framed a Scheme in respect of Shri Hanuman Mandir, Wedapur, Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati (for short, the said Trust), bearing PTR No.A-1287 (Amravati), as per Annexure-A appended to the said judgment and order. This was the subject-matter of challenge by the appellant in Misc. Civil Appeal No.168 of 2009, which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge-2, Amravati, by his judgment and order dated 14-9-2010. Hence, this second appeal. 3. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, by his judgment and order dated 14-8-2000, settled a Scheme in respect of the said Trust under sub-section (1) of Section 50A of the BPT Act, as per Annexure-...
Vilas S/O Rangrao Mahalle and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 15 Directors of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Amravati (Respondent No. 4) question the order dated 27.12.2011 passed by Respondent No. 2 District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, superseding it under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 1963 Act) and appointing an Administrator on it. The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation), Rules, 1967 framed under this Act are hereinafter referred to as 1967 Rules. 2. This Court has on 16.01.2012, restrained Administrator from taking charge of A.P.M.C. and thus elected body viz., petitioners still continue to function. 3. The Notice under Section 45 of 1963 Act for supersession is on various grounds which require scrutiny of material on record as the petitioners wish to contend that the Charges are not proved against them. But th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »