Mumbai Nagpur Court February 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.
Narendra Keshaorao Meshram Vs. Presiding Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.07.2003, passed by the School Tribunal, dismissing the Appeal STN No. 48/2002, filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act. 1977 (hereinafter referred to as œthe MEPS Act?), challenging his termination of service by an order dated 09.07.2000. 2. The School Tribunal has held that the appointment of the petitioner through out was temporary on year to year basis and it came to an end on 30.04.2002 and thereafter no order of appointment was issued to the petitioner. The School Tribunal has held that the petitioner cannot get the benefit of deemed confirmation in service by treating him to have been appointed on probation for a period of two years in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of MEPS Act. It has further been held that the petitioner was not qualified as he did not possess the qualification of B.Ed., at the time of his in...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maroti and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the the judgment and Award passed on 19.9.2003 in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2001 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara. 2. Respondent no. 1 on 30.10.1998 boarded a vehicle “ Tempo Trax bearing registration No. MH-31/H-9518 (for short jeep) for going to Dongargarh from Nagalwadi. The jeep belonged to respondent no. 2 and was ensured with the appellant. It was being driven by one Ashok Giripunje. When the jeep reached a spot within the limits of village Shaheepur on National High Way No. 6, at about 4-00 a.m., it rammed into back side of a truck standing on the road in a stationary condition. As a result, respondent no. 1 suffered severe injuries and was treated for those injuries, first at Rural Hospital, Deori and subsequently at Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. The injuries led him to permanent disability. According to respondent no. 1, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of...
Shrikrushna Narayan Tupkari Vs. Mahadeo and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the rival parties. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 19.5.2013 passed by learned District Judge-2, Akola (below Exh. 23) in Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2013, by which the said Application (Exh.23) filed by the present petitioner, was rejected. 3. In support of the Writ Petition Mr. A.S. Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice to the suit property and he came to know about pendency of the Appeal against the judgment and decree for specific performance of contract that was passed by the learned trial Judge in RCS No.388/2012 and, therefore, in order to save his interest, filed Application (Exh.23) in the pending Appeal. The lower Appellate Court rejected the Application (Exh.23) only on the ground that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and is a stranger to...
Kisan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1) The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6/4/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 57/2008, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: Accused Kisan and deceased Ramratan were residents of village Chandpur. Their houses were situated at the distance of about 200 feet from each other. Prior to occurrence of the incident, there was a Gram Panchayat election. Deceased Ramratan was supporting Munna Raut and Ranjana Raut whereas accused was supporting Jaswant Hinge and Benubai Lanje. During the course of election, quarrel took place between accused and deceased Ramratan. At that time, accused had given a threat to deceased Ramr...
Avinash Vs. Ganpat and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
1. This Appeal under Section 72 (4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now 'Maharashtra Act' instead of Bombay Act) is arising from the Judgment and order dated 10-08-2009 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur rejecting Change Report and Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2009. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. This second appeal was admitted on 15-06-2012 by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:- i) Could the finding recorded by the Joint charity Commissioner and then confirmed by the District Judge upholding disqualification of the Members admitted to the Trust as was held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is the result of the misinterpretation of clause (6) of the scheme of the Trust and thus, the finding of the Courts below is wholly unwarranted and unsustainable in law? ii) Whether the learned District Judge and Learned Joint commissioner were right in upholding the finding that the members of the Trust were rightly disqualified when the opportunity of ...
Satish Menon Vs. Purvee and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Shri H.G. Katekar for the applicant, learned Counsel Shri Vinay Dahat for non-applicant No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar for nonapplicant No.2. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The applicant is accused No.5 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 8288/2010 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur and is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant had filed the revision application before the Sessions Court challenging the order of issuance of process against him on the ground that the applicant was not Director of the Company at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The revision application has been dismissed. 4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was no more Director of the Company and therefore, he cannot be held vicariously liable for any...
Sujata and Another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Subsidiary of Gener ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed on 27th August, 1999 in Claim Petition No.177 of 1992 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 2. In an accident, which occurred at about 1.00 p.m. on 12.2.1992 husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 died on spot when Jeep bearing registration No.MUK 7979 by which he was travelling dashed against a stationary truck parked on the road, which had registration No.WB-23-1458. The jeep was insured with respondent No.1 and it was being driven by respondent No.2, who was its owner as well. The truck involved in the accident was owned by respondent No.4 and insured with respondent No.5, while respondent No.3 was its driver. Since there was rashness and negligence on the part of the drivers of both these vehicles, the appellants preferred petition claiming compensation from all the respondents. 3. The petition was resisted by respondent N...
Shriram Dattarao Chaudhari and Another Vs. Madhaodas
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants and their Counsel remain absent. This appeal was listed for final hearing pursuant to order dt. 5.2.2014 passed by this Court. At that time, Mr.Kuldeep Mahalle, learned Counsel for the respondent had submitted that, in view of the ruling in AlokAgarwal and Others vs. Punam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others reported in 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 104, Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the controversy. 2. This appeal was admitted on 12.7.2005 on the following substantial question of law: œWhether the Civil Court would have taken cognizance of the suit filed by the present respondent for recovery of possession from the appellant in view of Section 91 of the M.C.S. Act ? The substantial question of law as above was framed by this Court after the appellant was heard for admission on July 12, 2005. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the substantial question of law would not really survive as the controversy is c...
M/S. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and Others Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. By these petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging validity of the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?) being unconstitutional. The petitioners have, in the alternative, prayed for striking down Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 24 of the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are as under : The petitioner M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, which is a partnership firm, was constituted originally by eight partners. Since dispute arose between the partners, the partnership firm came to be dissolved in January 1974. A suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts was filed in 1974 being Special Civil Suit No.9/1974, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. In the said suit, Receivers came to be appointed from time to time in respect of properties of the partnership firm. The partnership ...
Ravindra and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri T.R. Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri R.N. Ghuge, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 12, Shri Sonone, learned Counsel for respondent no. 13. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard matter by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. By inviting attention to the proceedings of no confidence meeting conducted on 06.08.2013 Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners points out that the motion of no confidence was not moved therein as mandated by the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, particularly Rule 17 thereof. He submits that thus the motion of no confidence was not moved on 06.08.2013, and hence, the second such attempt in pursuance of notice dated 07.12.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 Tahsildar convening meeting on 13.12.2013 is, without jurisdiction and bad. He relies upon the express languag...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »