Mumbai Nagpur Court March 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.
Wamanrao and Others Vs. Munnibai (Since Deceased), Through Legal Repre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This writ petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the appellate Court in an appeal filed by the landlords under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act). 2. The respondents are owners of House No.54 situated at Itwari, Nagpur. Two shop blocks on the ground floor of aforesaid house were let out to the predecessor of the petitioners in the year 1970. The rent payable was Rs.215/- per month. As the landlords were in need of the tenanted premises for carrying on their business, eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide need. According to the landlords who were two brothers, they were carrying on their business in a shop having area of 3 ft. x 9 ft. owned by one Rajendrakumar Parmar. Both the brothers were doing separate business in half portion of said premises. As they wanted to expand their business and as they also desired to settle their sons, on 26-3-2002 notice...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. As requested by the parties, since the question of law canvassed in all these matters are same, Income Tax Appeal No.120 of 2013 is treated as a lead case and arguments are heard therein with an understanding that adjudication therein will dispose of the other appeals also. 2. Income Tax Appeal No.120 of 2013 is preferred against the Order dt.22-03-2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in ITA No. 113/Nag/2012 with a prayer to quash and set aside the same. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: That, on or about 13-01-2009, a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the business premises of M/s.Concrete Developers, Nagpur and residential premises of its Director. Several books of account and documents were seized. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 17-09-2010 along with detailed questionnaire seeking in explanation and d...
M/s. Paramhari Engineers Vs. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Co ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents. This Court has on 23.12.2013 called upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.32,42,500/- with the Registry of this Court. Accordingly, that amount is already deposited by the petitioner. 2. The communication dated 20.11.2013 sent by the respondent demanding an amount of Rs.32,42,500/- only towards non-refundable additional premium as a condition for grant of extension of time limit up to 27.02.2014 for approval of revised building plans, completion of factory building and obtaining Building Completion Certificate (B.C.C.) is assailed by the petitioner Industrial unit before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The question raised by the petitioner before this ...
Mohandas and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Petitioners landowners have approached this Court for setting aside the reservation No. S-169 in Final Development Plan of Gondia Town reserving their lands i.e. Survey Nos. 405/1, 406/2, 407/2, 410/2 and 411 of Mouza Gondia (Bk), for shopping complex and vegetable market. They also want a declaration that they are free to use and develop it as per user of adjacent lands. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is the relevant legislation. 2. Looking to the nature of controversy involved in the matter, We have heard the matter finally with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Rule is, therefore issued in the matter and the same is made returnable forthwith. 3. Final development plan under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act for short), for Gondia Municipal Town was published on 24.08.1984, and in it, the said land admeasuring .44 Hectors was reserv...
Abdul Rahim Khan (deceased thr. L.Rs) and Others Vs. Taj Bagh Committe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4th April, 2003, passed below Exh.9 and 108 by the executing Court in Regular Darkhast No. 289 of 1969. The objections raised to the executability of the compromise decree passed on 11.11.1957 in Section Appeal No. 248 of 1950 by this Court are accepted and the execution proceedings are dismissed. Hence, the legal heirs of the original decree holder are before this Court in this writ petition. 2. In Second Appeal No. 248 of 1950, decided by this Court on 11.11.1957, the terms of settlement were recorded as under; 1. That the respondent withdraws all his pleas against the title and possession of the appellant over the fields No. 43, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50 having total area 84.92 acres situated at Mouza Bidpeth, Thak No. 175, Patwari Halka No. 28, in Tahsil and Distt. Nagpur, and now accepts that the appellant is the full owner and entitled to possession thereof including the suit land as described in paras 1 and 1(a) ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwas Vijan Gedam
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) challenges the judgment dated 30.09.1999 in Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1993 whereby the reference proceedings filed by the respondent came to be allowed by enhancing the compensation towards acquisition of this Court. 2. Land admeasuring 0.09 R. from Survey No. 651 was the subject matter of acquisition under proceedings of the said Act. Though Survey No. 651 that was jointly owned by the respondent with one Anjana Dange admeasuring 0.51 R, only portion thereof was acquired. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on 17.09.1987 after which award came to be passed on 30.03.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs. 4,108.00 to the respondent for aforesaid land. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter issued notices to the present respondent to receive the amount of compensation. The respondent made an application for certified copy of...
The Amravati Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.10.1999 in Writ Petition No. 1055/1999 is, questioned by the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal came to be admitted on 22.10.1999 and on 16.10.2000, this Court granted interim stay in terms of prayer clause (a), thereby staying the operation and effect of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2. Shri Kalmegh, learned counsel for the appellants points out that Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by a local authority/planning authority for Amravati Municipal Corporation area and by a Competent Authority under the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act for short). The appellant no.2 is a Competent Authority empowered under Section 3 of the 1971 Act. In exercise of that power, and after recording satisfaction un...
Chaya and Others Vs. Additional Collector, Gadchiroli and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in all these petitions is to the no-confidence motion passed by absolute majority against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, which is confirmed in appeal by the Additional Collector in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (the said Act). 3. The facts of the cases are as under: A motion of no-confidence moved against the Sarpanch by the elected members of the Gram Panchayat was passed in terms of Section 35 of the said Act by absolute majority in a special meeting chaired by the Tahsildar. The appeals were preferred under Section 35(3-B) of the said Act before the Additional Collector, who accepted that the no-confidence motion was moved and passed by the elected members of the Gram Panchayats, as provided under Section 35 of the said Act by absolute majority. However, the ...
Alka and Others Vs. Joint Director and Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. In all these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order of the Scrutiny Committee functioning under Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001), invalidating the caste/tribe claim of respective petitioner. The petitioners seek protection in employment, in terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of ArunVishwanath Sonone .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457). The said claim for protection is objected by the State Government, as also by their respective employers on the ground that their caste/tribe does not figure in the Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 or later policy decision dated 30.06.2004, and hence benefit cannot be extended to them. 2. As the issue involved is same, as reque...
Dr. Ravindra Balaji Govindwar Vs. Dr. Ashok Dhoble and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20.04.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 151 of 2013. 2. The facts in so far as they are relevant for adjudication of the prayers made in the writ petition are that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 5 is in respect of Annual General Meeting of the Indian Dental Association that was held on 24.12.2011. The validity of aforesaid Annual General meeting was the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings between the petitioner on one side and the respondent nos. 1 to 5 on the other. The respondent no.6 acted as arbitrator in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act). An award came to be passed by the learned Arbitrator on 21.12.2013. By said award it was declared that the Annual General Meeting held on 24.12.2011 was illegal...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »