Mumbai Nagpur Court March 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.
Tikkamchand Ramvilas Gilda and Another Vs. Jankibai Pyarelal Shrivas a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed on 25.9.2001 by the Joint District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.21/1995 filed against the judgment and decree passed on 26.10.1994 in Regular Civil Suit No.402/1990 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. 2. The appellant is the grand daughter in law of the original plaintiff to whom the suit property, which is a shop situated in a building popularly known as Mathuradas building, Amravati, was bequeathed by the original plaintiff. Deceased respondent nos.1 and 2 were original defendant nos.1 and 2 and remaining respondents were substituted as defendant nos. 3(1) to 3(4) after the original defendant no.3. Nandalal Pyarelal Shrivas died during the pendency of the suit, they being legal representatives in the capacity as widow and children of said Nandalal respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties here...
Deputy Regional Transport Officer and Another Vs. Yeshwant
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the District Judge-II, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2000 whereby appeal of the present respondent was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit was set aside. 2. Plaintiff (present respondent) filed RCS No. 829 of 1997 before the Civil Judge, SD, Akola claiming following reliefs: œ(1) Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from not registering the vehicle of plaintiff permanently. (2) It may kindly be declared that the act of the defendants in not registering the vehicle as a transport vewhicle is an injustice upon the plaintiff and therefore, direction may kindly be issued to register the vehicle as transport-vehicle forthwith. (3) Compensation may kindly be awarded to plaintiff and same be saddled on both the defendants jointly and severally. (4) .... (5) .....? 3. Plaintiff was desirous to p...
Syed Ishaque Syed Nabi and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.R. Bora, J.) 1. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Maldhure, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Refusal by the respondents to the proposal submitted by the petitioners in regard to re-employment of Petitioner No. 1 beyond the age of superannuation on the post of Head Master of Shah Babu High School and Junior College, Patur, a School run by Petitioner No. 2, is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Petitioner No. 2 is a Minority Education Institute registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as well as Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Petitioner No. 1 is a Head Master of Shah Babu High School and Junior College, Patur. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Head Master of the said School on 01.07.1992 and since then he continuously worked on the said post. Petitioner No. 1 was to retire on 30.06.2007 on attain...
Vidarbha Mining Association Vs. Central Government Tribunal Revisional ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and the matter heard finally. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the common order dated 26.08.2010 passed by Central Government Tribunal i.e respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.17 (16)/2008-RC.II AND F No.17 (18)/2008-RC.II. Prayer is also made for maintaining the order passed by respondent No.3 on 26.06.2008 in respect of grant of mining license in favour of the petitioner. Further, a direction is sought to set aside the notification dated 29.09.2009 issued by the Central Government-respondent No.2 under Section 17A(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as œMMDR Act?). 3. The petitioner, a partnership firm having its office at Kamptee, District Nagpur, vide its application dated 16.09.2004 had applied for grant of mining lease in respect of 69.10 H/R of area from village Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, Dist...
GramIn Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, Through Its Secretary and Another Vs. B ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt.22.12.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2004 whereby the appeal was dismissed. The said appeal arose from the judgment and decree dt.16.3.2004 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2000 by Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadchiroli whereby the suit was decreed and the defendants were directed to deliver possession of the suit land bearing Survey No.244, area 0.80 hectors situated at village Rangi, Tq. Dhanora, District Gadchiroli. 2. The suit afore-mentioned was instituted seeking the relief of possession, damages as well as inquiry into mesne profit. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property and also relied upon a map filed along with the plaint. The plaintiff had alleged that there was encroachment made by or on behalf of the defendants and the plaintiff came to know about it in the month of May, 1993 and hence, he objected the act of...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Raghunath Ganpat Sheg ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Judgment: (Common) 1. Heard Shri Wankhede, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 “ employee. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 20.01.2004, passed by the Industrial Court at Yavatmal, in Complaint ULP No. 374/1999. The complaint has been allowed and the order of reappointment of the complainant as fresh employee has been set aside and the complainant is directed to be treated as continuous in service. The relief of backwages has been denied. 3] The employee preferred Writ Petition No. 3371/2004 before this court challenging the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court on 20.01.2004 to the extent it deprived him of backwages. This writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 24.01.2006. The present writ petition is preferred by the employer challenging the same order passed by the Industrial Court to the extent it sets aside the order of ...
Vijay Ramchandra Raut and Others Vs. Divisional Commissioner and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1] Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, dismissing Appeal No. 12/BVP16(2)/Dhanodi/201314 filed by the petitioners challenging their disqualification under Section 14(1)(j5) the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as œthe BVP Act), on the ground that the petitioners have failed to submit a certificate of the concerned Panchayat along with the resolution of Gram Sabha, certifying that the petitioners reside in a house owned by them and has a toilet in such house and they are using such toilet. 3] The relevant consideration in the order of the Commissioner is reproduced below; œHowever, as amended by the Bombay Village Panchayat and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Second Amendment) Act, 2010, the period of ...
Bhagwat Sheshrao Bhutekar Vs. Tulshiram and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr.Sawan Alaspurkar, learned Counsel holding for Mr.Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: a) Whether the impugned Judgments and Orders are unsustainable and contrary to law requiring interference by this Court? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons : 3. The Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and Order dt.25.3.2013 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-2, Buldhana in Regular Civil Appeal No.117 of 2009, which was dismissed. Said appeal arose from the Judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 2007 on 13.11.2009 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chikhali. The suit was filed to recover possession of the encroached land by the defendant. The plaintiff averred that the suit land was encroached upon by defendant. According to plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 in the trial Court, a...
Prakash Shalikram Kadu Vs. Gandhi Shikshan Sanstha, Through Its Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Dhole, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Hiwase, the learned AGP, for Respondent No.3. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissing Appeal No. STN/15/2002, filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (in short œthe M.E.P.S.Act?), challenging his dismissal from service by an order dated 14.02.2002. The tribunal has dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of an Assistant Teacher as he was not possessing the training qualification of B.Ed. The tribunal has further held that the petitioner was qualified for being appointed as Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I. In short), but, in fact, he was not appointed as P.T.I. It has been held that the appointment of the petitioner was not i...
Raju Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. The appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana by his judgment dated 23rd February, 2012 in Sessions Case No. 106 of 2009. 3. Complainant Ganesh Bhangale's wife Mrs. Versha had been admitted in Ward No.9 of Government Hospital, Buldana for delivery. The complainant was staying with his wife in the hospital ward itself. The incident in question had occurred on 17th May, 2009. Shraddha the daughter of the complainant had come to stay with the complainant at hospital two days prior to the date of incident. She had come along with her uncle Ramdas. Ramdas returned to his village and Shraddha had stayed back with her father. 4. On 17th May, 2009 at about 9.00 a.m. when the complainant, his wife and his daughter were taking meals below a tree outside the Government Hospital the appellant had approached the complainant and had demanded a bidi. The co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »