Court : Mumbai Nagpur
P.R. Bora, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.2. Order dated 20th February 2014 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 188 of 2013 is questioned in the present petition.3. The present petitioner was appointed as Police Patil for village Waghbodi, Post Gunthara, Tahsil and District Bhandara vide appointment order dated 5.2.2013 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara. Respondent no. 4 herein challenged the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Police Patil for said village by filing Original Application before the Tribunal. Vide impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the said application by setting aside the appointment of the present petitioner on the said post.4. Mr S. Borkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on an erroneous interpretation of the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1999, the Tribunal has set aside appointment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) 1. In Land Acquisition Case No. 18/1997, the Reference Court has delivered the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2004, granting compensation of Rs.3,75,67,985/- along with the other statutory benefits payable in respect of acquisition of land of 1.21 HR equivalent to 1,29,345 sq.ft, out of Survey No. 118/3, situated at Digras. First Appeal No. 67 of 2005 has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 159/- per sq.ft., as against the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft granted by the reference Court. First Appeal No.414 of 2007 is preferred by the State challenging the enhancement of total compensation from Rs.4,84,000/- to Rs. 3,75,67,985/- granted by the Reference Court. 2. Both these appeals pertain to the acquisition made at Digras, Distt. Yavatmal, for construction of Court buildings and the quarters for the judges and were heard and the judgment was dictated in the open court on 8th December, 2014, allowi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. The issue that arises for consideration in this application for review is whether failure to formulate a substantial question of law while deciding the second appeal and reversing the decree as passed can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record or whether the same is merely an erroneous decision that can only be corrected in appeal. 3. The facts that are relevant for adjudication of the present application are that the applicants are the respondents in Second Appeal No.110/2011. In aforesaid appeal, the judgment dated 18-2-2008 passed by the first appellate Court was under challenge. By order dated 8-4-2014, the second appeal was decided by holding that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court erred in holding that the suit filed by the present applicants original plaintiffs was not maintainable. The second appeal was accordingly allowed and said suit was dismissed as infructuous. Aforesaid order dated 8-4-2014 is thus sought t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2(A). 2. The appeal is filed by the original defendant nos.1, 2 and 4 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Courts granting decree in favour of the original respondent no.1/plaintiff upholding his entitlement for 1/9th share in the suit property. 3. The original respondent no.1/plaintiff filed the Civil Suit contending that Shri Balaji Sadashiv had two wives Sundarabai and Ginabai, Balaji had five sons and four daughters out of which the respondent no.1/plaintiff, the respondent no.2/original defendant no.3 and the respondent no.3/original defendant no.5 were from Sundarabai and rest of the brothers and sisters were from Ginabai. The original respondent no.1/plaintiff pleaded that his father died intestate. It was pleaded that in the partition between Balaji Sadashiv, Digambar original defendant no.2, Jagannath original defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Deshpande waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4, and learned Adv. Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 3. With the consent of rival parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order dated 15th February, 2014, by which, his selection to the post of Asstt. Electrician was cancelled. 3. In support of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement that was issued for filling the vacant posts in the districts of Nagpur, Aurangabad, Jalgaon etc., in the State of Maharashtra on the establishment of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co., Ltd. He applied in the category of Scheduled Caste by making an on-line application on 19th June, 2012. He was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. All these matters are placed before this Full Bench by a common order of reference dated 1-10-2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik and Shri A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.) to consider and decide the following questions: "1) Whether the relief of protection of service after invalidation of the caste claim can be granted by the High Court on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavita Solunke Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2012(8) SCC 430? 2) If the answer to question No.1 is in the affirmative, can such relief of protection of service be granted by the High Court in a case where the same relief has been earlier refused by the High Court?" 2. The reason for framing question No.1 is that there is conflict of views taken by the different Division Benches of this Court upon consideration of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 430. One l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 2296/1998 was called out for hearing on 10.11.2014 and none remained present for the petitioner while Mr. S. C. Mehadia, Advocate represented respondent-WCL. The question arising in the petition being of substantial importance, this Court decided writ petition on merit and dismissed it on 10.11.2014 itself, but reasons were to follow. Thereafter, it was brought to our notice that Writ Petition Nos.1181/1997, 1190/1997 and 2249/1998, in which same question is involved, are also pending for final hearing. Therefore, we decided to hear these three writ petitions and then record our reasons for deciding all these cases together. Accordingly, Mr. P. D. Meghe and Mr. B. Lahiri, Advocates for the petitioners, were heard in these three writ petitions on 11.12.2014. 2. In Writ Petition Nos.2296/1998 and 2249/1998, the petitioner-Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU) and its General Secretary Mohd. Tajuddin s/o Late Mohd. Haneef-petitioner no.2 had, ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Order: 1. These reports are filed by the Official Liquidator appointed over M/s. Akola Oil Industries Ltd. for confirmation of auction sale held on 9-11-2012, as per the notice issued pursuant to an order dated 13-4-2012 passed by this Court. The advertisement contained invitation of bids for 39 properties on as is where is basis and as is whatever basis. In the auction conducted on 9-11-2012, the highest bids in respect of all the properties are accepted, subject to confirmation of sale by this Court in terms of the order dated 13-4-2012. 2. On 15-2-2013, this Court passed an order as under: For the reasons stated in the report the highest bidders are required to deposit the balance amount of the bid price. The O.L.R., therefore, to issue the communication to each of the bidder on the address given by him specifying the exact amount which is required to be deposited. Upon receipt of such notice/intimation in writing, the bidders shall deposit the amount to specified in the notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Order: 1. These reports are filed by the Official Liquidator appointed over M/s. Akola Oil Industries Ltd. for confirmation of auction sale held on 9-11-2012, as per the notice issued pursuant to an order dated 13-4-2012 passed by this Court. The advertisement contained invitation of bids for 39 properties on as is where is basis and as is whatever basis. In the auction conducted on 9-11-2012, the highest bids in respect of all the properties are accepted, subject to confirmation of sale by this Court in terms of the order dated 13-4-2012. 2. On 15-2-2013, this Court passed an order as under: For the reasons stated in the report the highest bidders are required to deposit the balance amount of the bid price. The O.L.R., therefore, to issue the communication to each of the bidder on the address given by him specifying the exact amount which is required to be deposited. Upon receipt of such notice/intimation in writing, the bidders shall deposit the amount to specified in the notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri P.Y. Deshpande, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri J.J. Chandurkar, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1. None appears for the other respondents though served. 2. The petition is by the tenant challenging the judgment passed by the District Court granting decree for possession and ancillary reliefs in favour of the respondents. 3. Though it is debatable as to whether the impugned judgment and decree can be challenged in revision or in writ petition, as the writ petition is admitted and is pending for final hearing since 2005, I have taken up the petition for final hearing without delving into the issue. 4. Shri Ramratan Shrivallabh Chandak the owner of the suit property had filed proceedings under clause 13(3)(vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short Rent Control order 1949) seeking permission of the Rent Controller to issue notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner tenant. The Rent ...
Tag this Judgment!