Mumbai Nagpur Court January 2014 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.
Mohd. Iqbal Sheikh Amir Vs. the District Selection Committee, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Looking to the nature of controversy involved in the matter, we have heard the matter by consent of Shri S.Z. Sonbhadre, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1, Mrs. I.L. Bodade, learned Counsel for Respondent no.2, Mr. D.M. Kale, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5. Rule is thus issued in the matter making the same returnable forthwith. Liberty to correct name of respondent no.5 is granted. Necessary correction be carried out forthwith. 2. The impugned order dated 11.04.2012 is passed by respondent no.2, rejecting objection of petitioner and holding that respondent no.5, who has secured 421 marks out of 800 in B.Ed. written examination, is above petitioner, who has secured 364 marks out of 700. This order is passed because of earlier directions issued by this Court in its order dated 27.02.2012, while disposing of Writ Petition...
Prerna Shikshan Mandal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through I ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ghodeswar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported at 1993 (2) Mh.L.J.1467 (Vidya Vikas Khandekar V/s. Balmandir Sanstha). 2. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard the matter finally with the consent of parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner no.1 “ Management runs four schools in Chandrapur district. All these schools are duly recognized and Samrat Ashok High School at Chinchpalli i.e. one out of these schools is only receiving grant-in-aid. One Shri Siddhartha Raut was working as Headmaster in unaided Samrat Ashok High School at Lohara. Headmaster Shri N.U. Ramteke working in aided school superannuated on 31/10/2012. Petitioners, therefore, transferred said Raut to aided school and sought approval thereto. The approval has not been granted ...
Subhash and Another Vs. the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Di ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2122013 passed by Labour Court, Wardha in WCA No. 1/2011. The appellants are the original applicants, who had filed an application under Section 22(2) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for determination of amount of compensation payable to them for the accidental death of their son, Suresh, during the course of the employment. Respondent no. 1, the insurance company is the original non-applicant no. 2 and respondent no. 2, the employer of deceased Suresh Tiwade is the original non-applicant no. 1. 3. The appellants claimed that death of Suresh Tiwade, who was the driver employed on the truck bearing registration no. MH-32-B-4685 owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 1, occurred on 17-11-2010 during the course and from out of the employment. Therefore, they filed an application before the Labour Court for determination of compensation payable to them. 4. Respondent no. 2 resis...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager Vs. Naina and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
Oral Judgment: This appeal arises out of the judgment and Award passed on 01.04.2013 in Claim Petition No. 62 of 2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants who had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 respectively, being the insurer of the tipper truck and driver and owner of the tipper truck. This tipper truck together with another vehicle, a luxury buss bearing registration No. MH-35-1671, was involved in the accident. The tipper truck had its registration number as MH-31-CB-4892. 3. It was the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that their son Ashish Kumar was travelling by the luxury bus on 20.4.2010 when the said tipper truck gave a violent dash to the luxury bus, and it resulted in sustaining of grievous injuries by Ashish. Ashish was 22 years at the time of accident and soon after the accident he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. ...
Shantabai Vs. Sau Nanibai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The second appeal was admitted on 13.1.1998 on the following substantial questions of law stated in memo of appeal as 7.3 and 7. 4 “ œ7.3 Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit by holding that even if there is no document of title in her favour, the respondent no.1 has perfected her title by adverse possession, thereby completely contravening the test of doctrine of adverse possession? 7.4 “ Whether the courts below were justified in granting decree of possession without determining the status of the appellant as to whether he was a licensee or a trespasser, in absence thereof no decree for mesne profit could be passed under Order 20, rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code?? 2. The second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.9.1997 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Wardha in RCA No. 161 of 1995 which was dismissed with costs. The said Regular Civil Appeal arose from the judgment and order dated 19.7...
Bhartiya Seva Acharya Education Society, (Through Its Secretary) Nagpu ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Oral Judgment: Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2012, passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STC/05/2011, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as œthe MEPS Act?). The appeal filed by the respondent no.3 employee challenging the order of termination dated 30.12.2010 has been allowed and the order of termination dated 30.12.2010 has been quashed and set aside and the respondent no.3 “ employee is directed to be reinstated in service to her original post in continuity of service with all consequential benefits and also the back-wages from the date of termination. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.3 employee was working as an Assistant Teacher. She was placed under suspens...
Vinayak S/O. Daulat Watkar (Dead) Through L.Rs.: and Others Vs. Jeevan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This Second Appeal impugns Judgement and Order dated 10-07-2002 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.601 of 1997 decided by 2nd Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The Second Appeal was admitted on 29-09-2003 on the substantial questions of law stated as under- A) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in holding that: 1. The suit transaction is lease without any documentary evidence on record? 2. Appellant did not take serious action for two years and hence court came to conclusion that it is circumstance, to infer about lease created? 3. The respondent was paying the electric charges for two years and hence the respondent is not gratuitous licensor and hence lower appellate court comes to the conclusion that transaction between appellant and respondent is lease? 4. The transaction is between the appellant and respondent is lease and therefore the small causes court alone has jurisdiction to decide the matter? 2. The First Appeal arose from the decree of ejectment ...
New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Its' Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1. This appeal arises out of judgment and award passed on 07/4/2003 in Claim Petition No.369 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The appellant is insurer of the offending truck involved in the accident. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Dilip, who died in the vehicular accident, and respondent No.3 is driver of the offending truck. 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 lost their son, Dilip, in a road accident which occurred on 22/5/2002. On 22/5/2002 deceased Dilip was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-31/AZ-649 and was proceeding towards his village Kothurna. When his motorcycle came near Khapa-Parshivani road, one truck bearing registration No. GJ-6/V-4681 being driven rashly and negligently, gave a violent dash to the motorcycle of deceased Dilip. Deceased Dilip sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. He was 27 years of age at that time and was earning about Rs. 7,000/- per month from milk business. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were depen...
M/S. Central Cables Limited and Others Vs. the Union of India, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for quashing of an order dated 25.11.1997 passed by Respondent No.3 “ Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise at Nagpur. By said order, Respondent No.3 confiscated a machine (capital goods) Gravi Mix Magruire WSB 420, valued at Rs.5,21,396/- under Section 111(d) and (f) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and in terms of its Section 125, gave option to pay fine of Rs.1,30,000/- in lieu thereof, in addition to payment of appropriate duty. He imposed penalty of Rs.35,000/- on petitioner No.1 under Section 112(a) of the Act, of equal amount on Managing Director personally and Rs.15,000/- on Purchase Officer of Petitioner No.1 “ Company. The Managing Director is Petitioner No.2 before this Court while the Purchase Officer is Petitioner No.3. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India while Respondent No.2 is the Commissioner...
Muslim Education Society, Wardha, Through Its Secretary, Dr. Babasaheb ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Both these Writ Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule in both Writ Petitions made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 3. Writ petition no.2781 of 2013 has been preferred by the Muslim Education Society, Wardha being aggrieved by the deletion of its name from the list of Minority Institutions in Vidarbha. Consequentially, the communication dated 642013 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Wardha is also challenged as in said communication, the name of the petitioner Society has not been shown as running a Minority School. According to said Society, on 1-6-1994, the Dy. Director of Education “ respondent No.4 had issued a communication recognizing the High School and Junior College run by said Society as a School run by the Minority Society and permission was, therefore, granted in terms of pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »