Mumbai Nagpur Court June 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.
Piraji Narayanrao Mathankar and Another Vs. Laxman Upasrao Pote and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. Rule. Heard finally. 2. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Appellate Court allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal filed by the present respondents and setting aside the order passed by the trial court dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.279/2007 under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). 3. The relevant facts are that one Kasabai Pote, the predecessor of the present respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No.851/1998 for partition of agricultural land bearing survey nos.56 and 57. It was the case of the said Kasabai that the land in question belonged to her father and that same was ancestral property. After the death of her father, the predecessor of the present petitioner her brother was looking after the said property. Hence, suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed. Her brother “ Narayan was arrayed as defendant. On 30.07.2002 Regular Civil Suit No.851/1998 came to ...
M/s. S.S. Dave and Company Vs. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur through its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Mr.Akshay Sudame, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dt.4.8.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chandrapur whereby plaint was returned. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, in the impugned order, the learned trial Judge made reference to a clause in the contract between the parties, which is mentioned as below : Condition no.24. Dispute Redressal System 24.1 : If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise in connection with or arising out of this contract or the execution of works or maintenance of the works thereunder, whether before its commencement or during the progress of works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to the competent Authority, described along with their power, in the Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent author...
Nitin Vs. Ramesh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the said Act) takes exception to the judgment dated 3-5-2013 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Gondia. By said judgment, the claim for compensation moved by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 10 of the said Act has been partly allowed and the present appellant has been held liable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The relevant facts are that: The son of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 “ Lalchand used to do various works under the directions of the respondent No.3 herein “ Santosh. According to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, on 19-6-2011, the respondent No.3 had come to their residence to engage services of Lalchand. The respondent No.3 told Lalchand that work of laying tin sheets in the Godown owned by the present appellant was to be done. Accordingly, while undertaking the work of laying tin sheets on 19-6-2011, Lalchand came i...
Rajendra Namdeorao Akre Vs. Rajkumar Bhalerao Balbudhe and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Shri H.S. Chitaley, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states on instructions that respondent No.2 has filed a pursis before the Appellate Court stating that she does not desire to contest the proceedings. Statement accepted. In view of aforesaid statement presence of respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 2. Rule. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. By the present writ petition the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 11.09.2014 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.328/2012 whereby the delay in filing restoration application has been condoned subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-. 4. Brief facts are that the petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.04.1991. Said suit came to be decreed on 10.10.1994. The respondents had filed First Appeal No.101/1995, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge on 02.05.2009. This adjudication was made subject-matter of ...
Naresh Vs. The Authorised Officer, Washim Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, dated 18.03.2008, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002? for the sake of brevity). The petitioner also challenges the judgment of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 16.09.2013, confirming the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Few facts giving rise to the present petition are stated thus: The petitioner was the joint owner of the immovable property along with Jaiprakash Pahelwan and Nirmala Pahelwan. In the year 2000, Jaiprakash Pahelw...
Bhaskar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks an order for quashing and setting aside of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 3073 of 2015 dated 25.03.2015 punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act), registered with Police Station, Frezarpura, Amravati. 2. This Court had issued notice on 17.04.2015 and directed that the charge sheet shall not be filed without its permission. Thereafter, non-applicant “ State of Maharashtra has filed reply on 05.05.2015. In this background, we have heard Shri Shashank Manohar with Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Mehta, learned APP for the non-applicant finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith with consent. 3. FIR No. 3073 of 2015 has been questioned only on the ground that it is second FIR. This Court is not called upon to find out whether allega...
Dr. Dilip Vs. The Hon'ble Chancellor Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpu ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent No.1 whereby the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner stands disposed of by maintaining the disqualification of the petitioner under provisions of Section 44(e) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (for short the said Act). 3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had appeared for the M. A. examination in the year 1987 wherein he was found guilty of having indulged in unfair means in the conduct of the examination. After an enquiry was held, the punishment of debarring him from the examination came to be imposed for said misconduct. The petitioner at that point of time was working as a Lecturer in a College that was affiliated to respondent No.2 “ University. Subsequently, in the year 2001, the petitioner was elected as a Dean to the faculty of Commerce which is one of the authorit...
Kishor and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-26-2015
Oral Judgment [Per Court]: 1. Jawaharlal Darda Education Society, Yavatmal, is a registered Society/Public Trust running educational institutions. Shri Kishor Sureshchandra Darda is the Secretary of the said society. Shri Prakash Dhanraj Chopda is the President of the society. Shri Vijay Jawaharlal Darda, the ex-President of the society and a Sitting Member of the Parliament, is now the Trustee of the Trust. Shri Rajendra Jawaharlal Darda is the Vice President of the society who was also Cabinet Minster of the State Government in the last government. Devendra s/o Vijay Darda and Rushi s/o Rajendra Darda, the sons are also the trustees of the said trust along with Kirti Dhanraj Gandhi. Ashok Shankarrao Chauhan was the then Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. For brevity, the criminal applications filed by them, which are being disposed of, by this common judgment, are specified as under:- 2. Criminal Application (APL) No.469/2011 is filed by Kishor s/o Sureshchandra Darda:- Resp...
Nabhakumar Vs. Abhishek Krishna Collector and Competent Authority and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present proceedings the petitioner seeks appropriate action being taken against the respondents for passing contradictory orders thereby disobeying the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.216/2014. By said order dated 25.02.2014 this Court had permitted the present petitioner to operate the licence in question by keeping accounts of the business and by making payment of revenue to the government on regular basis till the decision of the dispute or the appeal or as the case may be by the Competent Authority. 2. Shri S.S. Voditel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by order dated 25.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.216/2014 this Court had found that after the death of the original licencee, the present petitioner had been running the shop in question. There was a dispute amongst the legal heirs of the original grantee and the licence in question came to be suspended by relying upon Clause 10 of Circular d...
The Executive Engineer Vs. Mohandas Chintaman Somkunwar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the award dated 19.04.2005 passed by the Labour Court answering the reference in affirmative and declaring that the petitioner had terminated the services of the respondent illegally. A direction for reinstatement without back wages was given. 2. It is the case of the respondent that he was in service with the Public Works Department, Wardha as a labourer from 22.01.1984. His services were dispensed with on 21.04.1986 without any valid reason. In the year 1997 after giving approach notice a reference was made by the appropriate government to the Labour Court under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the said Act). In the statement of claim it was stated that there was violation of provisions of Section 25F of the said Act and that two juniors had been retained in service, after services of the respondent had been dispensed with. 3. The petitioner filed its reply and denied that...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »