Mumbai Nagpur Court April 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.
Zilla Parishad Nagpur Through its Chief Executive Officer, Civil Lines ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure takes exception to the judgment dated 31-10-2013 passed by the first appellate Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant and confirming the decree passed by the trial Court on 21-12-2010 directing the present appellant to hand over vacant possession of encroached portion of land. 4. The relevant facts are that the respondent original plaintiff claims to have purchased various pieces of lands including land bearing Survey No.34/2003 vide registered sale deed dated 23-12-1986. 5. It is the case of the respondent that various persons including the present appellant had encroached upon portions of the lands purchased by the respondent. The respondent accordingly got said lands measured on 21-2-1987 and it was noticed that in so far as the present appellant is concerned, it had encroached land to the exten...
The Principal, Industrial Training Institute and Another Vs. Anant Niv ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The petition challenges the award dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court at Buldhana, in Reference No. 69 of 2004. The Reference Court has answered the reference in the affirmative and directed reinstatement of an employee with continuity in service and also full backwages. The Labour Court has recorded the finding that there was violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short "the I.D. Act), the termination has been effected by way of punishment without holding an enquiry. 2. The facts of the case are as under: The respondent was appointed initially by an order dated 23.11.1995 as an Assistant Store Keeper with effect from 01.12.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 purely on temporary basis for a period of 5 months, with a condition that the appointment is liable to be terminated even before expiry of the tenure of appointment without issuing any notice. The respondent-employee was required to execute an undertaking stating that the t...
M/s. Gandhi Builders and Developers Vs. Shyamlal s/o Ramchandra Yadav ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal filed by the original plaintiff takes exception to the order passed by the trial Court refusing to grant any interim injunction in favour of the appellant during pendency of the suit. 2. It is the case of the appellant plaintiff that on 26-11-2007, an agreement was entered into with the predecessor of the respondents original defendant. As per said agreement, the parties agreed that the work of developing the property in question which was an open plot for the purposes of constructing an apartment scheme should be undertaken by the appellant subject to various terms and conditions. According to the appellant, it was permitted to develop said property subject to the original defendant paying a sum of Rs.531 per square foot as consideration. Initially, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the original defendant. The balance amounts were to be paid in the manner prescribed in the agreement. According to the appellant, on 18-3-2011, a notice came to be issu...
Ganpat Bakaramji Lad Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 14th September, 2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 2011, by which the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, the present appeal was filed by the appellant. Facts : 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that deceased Manisha alias Manorama was married to appellant-accused Ganpat Lad nine years before the incident. Two daughters and a son were born out of the wedlock. The appellant was ill-treating his wife since after marriage by assaulting her under the influence of liquor and she used to go to the house of her brother Anil Pohane and used to inform him about the drinking habit of appellant Ganpat and assaulting her on trifle matters. Appellant was given un...
Archana and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Ak ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Members of Muley family have approached this Court in these two petitions with contention that acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.3-Municipal Council, Akola (now, Municipal Corporation) and undertaken by respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer in relation to plot No.33/1, Sheet No. 40A situated at Ward No.27, Akola have lapsed. The State Government is respondent No.1 while Special Land Acquisition Officer is respondent No.2 in both the matters. Chief Officer of Municipal Council is respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1998 while Municipal Council is respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 789 of 2001. One of the tenants in the property sought to be acquired namely Sharad Vinayak Dixit has been permitted to intervene on 13/8/2002 in Writ Petition No. 789 of 2001. Civil Application No. 3938 of 2000 moved by very same person in Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1998 is still pending and is to be considered at the stage of fi...
Satish Vs. Dr. Gopal Ramnarayan Mundhada and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition at the instance of the original plaintiff takes exception to the order dated 2-4-2014 thereby deciding the preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court to consider the reliefs sought in the plaint. The relevant facts are that according to the petitioner plaintiff, there is a temple near his house in which various religious activities are regularly conducted. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 defendant Nos.1 to 3 are having their residential house near said temple. In the month of May 2013, the petitioner noticed certain construction activities going on near the residential house of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner learnt that a Hospital was being constructed at said place. According to the petitioner, the sanction for aforesaid construction that was granted by the respondent No.4 Municipal Corporation was contrary to the building bye-laws. According t...
Lokmanya Tilak Smarak Mandal and Another Vs. Ravindra Rameshrao Sambar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 10.04.2007 passed by the School Tribunal, allowing Appeal No. STC/42/2006 filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (in short MEPS Act), challenging the termination of services with effect from 09.11.2006 on the basis of the charges proved against the respondent no.1 in the enquiry. The School Tribunal has directed reinstatement of the respondent no.1 in service to the original post of Assistant Teacher with continuity in service and full backwages. The matter was admitted on 28.04.2008 and during the pendency of the petition, there was stay to the effect and operation of the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. As a result, the respondent No.1 is out of employment. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 was terminated from service by an order dated 04.10.2006 on the ground that the charges of misconduct level...
Magaswargbiya Lokhit Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others Vs. Kumar Bal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the School Tribunal, allowing Appeal No.66/2012 filed by the respondent No.1 challenging his termination from service by an order dated 06.06.2012. The respondent No.1 was terminated on the ground that he was appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate and in spite of repeated reminders, he failed to produce the caste validity certificate. The only ground on which the School Tribunal has set aside the termination is that in terms of the Government Resolution dated 07.12.1994 and the decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, there is no record to show that the respondent No.1 committed fraud or fabricated the caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe category, which will disentitle him from the reliefs claimed. The School Tribunal has set aside the said termination and directed his reinstatement in service. The School Tribunal has further held that if the respondent...
M/s. Vijay Udhyog, Akola Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Vidarbha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This Reference on an application under Section 256[1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of assess refers following two questions: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and construction of provision of Section 80-I and 263 the Tribunal is right in sustaining the action of the C.I.T. U/s. 263? 2. According to Shri Dewani, learned Counsel for the assessee, question no.2 must be first looked into and answered. He urges that if question no.2 is answered in favour of the assessee, answer to question no.1 may not be very relevant. 3. Shri Parchure, learned counsel for Revenue, however, submits that as both the questions are referred, both need to be appreciated and answered independently. According to him, effort of assessee to have answer to only question no.2 is errone...
Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident and are based on identical facts, they are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. The respondent in F.A. No.594/2002 and the respondent in F.A. No.595/2002 are brothers who were riding on their Luna from Kanhan to Nagpur on 25-5-1992. According to said respondents, between 8 p.m. and 8.30 p.m., they were hit by a Military vehicle. The respondent in First Appeal No.595/2002 was riding the Luna while the respondent in First Appeal No.594/2002 was the pillion rider. According to said respondents, the offending vehicle had dashed a cycle, an autorickshaw and a scooter besides dashing the Luna. Both the respondents, therefore, filed Claim Petition No.480/1992 seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. During pendency of the said proceedings, it was directed that there being two claimants, two separate petitions be registered and accordingly, Claim Petition No.738/1997 was regist...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »