Mumbai Nagpur Court May 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.
Hariram and Another Vs. Uddal and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 23.7.2013, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Gondia, in Regular Civil Appeal No.160 of 2012, which was partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and present appellants/defendants were restrained from obstructing the way of present respondents/plaintiffs in between their houses and school building, as per entry recorded in wajibul-arz Exh.88. The appellants/defendants were directed to remove the obstruction, if any, on the suit way. i.e. as per entry recorded in Exh.88. The first appeal arose from judgment and decree dated 30.7.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Tirora, in Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2006. The suit was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are, thus: The respondents/plaintiffs had instituted the suit on the ground that present respondents/plaintiffs are the owners of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.351, ad...
M/S. Gupta Coal India Private Limited Vs. M/S. Swiss Marine Services S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-09-2014
P.R. Bora, J.1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Parties have placed on record all relevant documents which are not in dispute. Hence it would not be necessary to call for record and proceedings. Hence record and proceedings dispensed with.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 07/01/2014 in Special Civil Suit No.694/2012 whereby he has dismissed the said civil suit for want of jurisdiction, the plaintiff therein has preferred the present appeal.3. The appellant is a registered Company dealing in the business of coal. It also imports coal. During off shore acquisition of coal it requires to engage the services of the companies like the present respondent who make available the vessels for transportation of the coal. Sometimes in the month of September, 2011 the appellant and the respondent started negotiations through a broker by name M/s Saigal Sea Trade. Considerable correspondence t...
Debashu Services Private Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, C ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-08-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Validity of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 served on the petitioner company, whereby reassessment has been ordered is challenged by it in these two writ petitions. Notice in Writ Petition No.2005/2013 relates to reassessment for A.Y. 2006 “ 2007 whereas notice in Writ Petition No. 6606/2013 pertains to the reassessment for A.Y. 2008 “ 2009. Since grounds of challenge in both the writ petitions are same, they are being decided by this common Judgment. 3. Petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a regular assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short œthe Act?). The petitioner company is the authorized dealer for spare parts of Kirloskar Pumps and does exclusive supply to mines of Western Coalfields Limited and South Eastern Coalfields Limited. 4. Petitioner...
SachIn Vs. Sau. Sushma
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Shri Sudhir Moharir for the petitioner and learned Counsel Shri R.R. Vyas for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner has moved this Court by invoking powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Application No.890/2012 (Sushma vs. Sachin). The order, which is questioned before this Court, reads as under:- œPerused the application and stay. Heard learned Advocate for both sides. Applicant relied on 2013 All M.R.(Cri.) 2572. Learned Advocate for N.A. has opposed that Magistrate has no powers. N.A. has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance. Learned Advocate has also confessed that N.A. has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance order which is passed on Exhibit 13....
Abdul Salam Abdul Khalique Vs. Shah Babu Education Society and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In Appeal No. 116/1996 filed under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, the School Tribunal has set aside the order of termination passed on 28.07.1996 on the basis of the enquiry conducted and has directed the management to conduct a fresh enquiry against the petitioner, from the stage of constitution of Enquiry Committee as per Rule 36(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. The School Tribunal has further directed the management to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner, from the date of the judgment of the School Tribunal, till the completion of the enquiry. The question of reinstatement of the petitioner in service and payment of his backwages is left to be decided, upon the out come of the enquiry, by the management. The employee has preferred this writ petition, to the extent it permits the management to conduct fresh enquiry from the stage of the constitu...
M/S. Punya Coal Roadlines Through Its Proprietor Yugpradhan and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Petitioner 3-A before us is a joint venture firm (JV) of other petitioners and all of them challenge the order dated 19.2.2014 by which the Letter Of Allotment i.e. LOA of the contract of petitioner to supply hiring of equipments (HOE) for removal of overload burden of Padmapur opencast mine came to be cancelled and its earnest money deposit of Rs.42,76,100/- came to be forfeited. Similarly, the said JV and its all constituent firms or partners are debarred from participation in future tenders which may be floated by respondents for a period of one year. Letter of allotment by respondent is dated 20.9.2013 and as per the petitioners, as site was placed in its possession on 12.11.2013, events prior to that date are not decisive and not relevant. Clause 6 of Letter Of Allotment (LOA) is relied upon to urge that it casts obligation upon petitioners to commence work within 10 days thereafter. Show cause notice dated 18.10.2013 asking it to commenc...
Nagpur Shikshan Mandal, Through Its Secretary and Another Vs. Varsha V ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 21-10-2013 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, allowing Appeal No.STN/05/2013 filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (œMEPS Act?) challenging her termination from service by an order dated 31-10-2012. The School Tribunal has set aside the order of termination, and the petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service as Part Time Teacher with continuity. The relief of full back wages has been denied. 3. The controversy before the School Tribunal was whether the respondent No.1, who was appointed as a Part Time Teacher on 22-9-2003, to teach the Junior College classes, acquired the status of a permanent employee, and, therefore, she was entitled to a protection in service, as contemplated under Rule 26 of the M...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›