Mumbai Nagpur Court January 2015 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.
Raju and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary Urban ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
Common Judgment: 1. These writ petitions can be conveniently decided by this common judgment in view of similarity of issues raised therein. 2. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order passed by the State Election Commission, Maharashtra-respondent No.2 thereby setting aside the order of disqualification of the returned candidates under the provisions of Section 10(1E) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short 'the said Act'). Besides aforesaid challenge, the petitioner in all these writ petitions, is also seeking a declaration that after holding the respondent No.5 to be disqualified, the respondent No.6 be declared to be elected as a Councillor. 4. General elections to elect the Councillors at the Amravati Municipal Corporation were held in the month of February 2012. The results of said elections were declared on 17/02/2012. It was incumbent upon the candidates to submit the...
Nalini Prakash Ambagade and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. Initially, this application was filed by Prakash Ramaji Ambagade and Smt. Nalini Prakash Ambagade, the accused no. 1 and 2 in the charge-sheet filed against them by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Applicant no. 1, who is now dead and who was accused no. 1, was the husband of applicant no.2, original accused no. 2. Accused no. 2 has been roped in the charge-sheet on the allegations that being wife of accused no. 1, she abetted accused no. 1, her husband, during the period from the year 1973 to the year 2001, to amass huge health which was disproportionate to his known source of income. The value of the disproportionate assets of accused no.1, as estimated by the prosecution, was of Rs.29,30,642/-. In these disproportionate assets, it was alleged, the shares of assets held ...
Rahul Omprakash Gandhi Vs. Pusad Urbhan Co-op. Bank Ltd. through its S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forth with. Heard finally by consent.2. Question involved in this petition relates to territorial jurisdiction of a criminal Court to try an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act for short) and how the matters already instituted and pending at the stage of recording of evidence are to be dealt with, once it is found that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, in view of the law declared in this regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court.3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the drawee bank, which is State Bank of India, Darwha Branch, is situated at Darwha and not at Pusad, Pusad Court will not have jurisdiction to try the case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits that mere issuance of notice from Pusad will not confer any jurisdiction on Pusad Court, as has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dashra...
Apparao Bahadurrao Ghuge Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
Oral Judgment: (P.N. Deshmukh, J.) 1. This criminal appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 3/12/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial Case No.62/2011 thereby convicting appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly, it is the case of prosecution that accused was married to deceased Manda about 28 years prior to incident and they were having two sons, namely, Nitin and Akshay and daughter P.W.4 Manisha. At the time of incident, accused was working as Canal Inspector while ...
Gopal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the Non-applicant Nos.2, 4 and 5 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1. The Non-applicant No.3 is only a formal party as he has not challenged the order of the trial Court by filing a revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, I do not find it necessary to hear him. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally with consent of the parties appearing before the Court. 4. By this application, the applicant has challenged the common order dated 30th September, 2014, passed in Criminal Revision No.142/2014 and Criminal Revision No.143/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur. 5. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 129, quashed the order passed in Summary Criminal Case No.42...
Narayan Jangluji Thool and Others Vs. Mala
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the complaint filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2005") by the respondent together with order dated 24/7/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal granting interim maintenance to the respondent. 4. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the respondent has nowhere averred in the petition that she has been living or at any point of time before filing of the application under the Act, 2005 was living with petitioner No.1 in a relationship arising from marriage or that was similar to a marriage. He also submits that even otherwise, the respondent could not have entered in such a relationship, called the domestic relationship under Section 2 of the Act, 2005 as it is an admitted fact th...
Kavita Vinayakrao Dhopte Vs. Vinayakrao Ramchandra Dhopte
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 07/6/2014 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, thereby allowing an application (Exh.28) filed by the respondent for grant of permission to amend his composite reply to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming maintenance from the respondent. 4. It so happened that in the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr. P. C. at the instance of the petitioner, on 20/3/2014, the respondent filed an application seeking grant of permission of the Court to amend the composite reply and written statement. That was the stage when evidence had already commenced and an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief had been filed on record on that very date by the petitioner and her statement of oath, in support of her averements in the affidavit h...
Jitendrakumar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)1. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter, Writ Petition is heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.2. Shri Samarth, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has fully complied with the eligibility norms in relation to financial capacity, and respondents had been too technical about non-production of original fixed deposit receipts, mentioned in tender document, as security. Its non-production at the most could have resulted in discarding those two receipts, which does not in any way prejudice the eligibility of petitioner in terms of the advertisement.3. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has relied upon reply affidavit. He submits that the matter pertains to contract between the parties and in this situation, in order to be fair and transparent, all officers of the respondent interpret the provisions str...
Manikrao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging the order passed by J.M.F.C., (Court No.9), Amravati, on 28.4.2014 refusing to discharge them from Reg. Criminal Case No. 2 of 2006, arising out of Crime No. 108/05, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against them and also the order of Sessions Judge passed on 31.10.2014 in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2014, thereby confirming the order of refusal of discharge of the applicants passed by the learned J.M.F.C. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: (a) Vaishali daughter of applicant no. 1 got married with one Pravin Charjan r/o Amravati, in the year 1990. Viashali died of an unnatural death in her matrimonial home on 12.10.2005. There used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife and it appears that demand of money was the bone o...
Agricultural Produce Market and Others Vs. Ashok and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. The issue that arises in these writ petitions is having failed to prove the charges of misconduct that led to the dismissal of the employee, can the employer be permitted to rely upon very same charges to dispense with his services on the ground of loss of confidence? These writ petitions can be decided by this common judgment as the judgment passed by the Industrial Court dated 12-7-2005 is under challenge at the instance of both the parties. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5907/2005 shall be referred to as the employer, while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1311/2007 shall be referred to as the employee. Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that the employee was appointed as a clerk with the Agricultural Produce Market Committee by employer on 13-10-1986. The employee was getting daily wages @Rs.20/- per day. During the course of service, a chargesheet was issued on 5-2-1994 by the employer. The employee was put under suspension and an en...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »