Mumbai Nagpur Court July 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.
Amol Sahebrao Solanke Vs. The Tahsildar, Kanzara and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition by consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This petition was assigned to this Court pursuant to the direction dated 30.6.2015 from the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court. 3. The facts of the case, are thus: The petitioner is contesting the general elections as Member of Kanzara village panchayat to be held on 4.8.2015 from Ward No.2 of the said village panchayat. Respondent No.1/Tahsildar, Kanzara village, Taluka Mangrulpir and respondent No.2/Anil Bhaurao Yewtikar are appointed as returning officer to held elections of village panchayat of Kanzara pursuant to election notice dated 4.7.2015 issued by respondent No.1/Tahsildar, Kanzara, Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 returning officer could not have considered nomination form of respondent No.3 Sunil Namdeorao Harne for contesting the election as Member of the village pancha...
Sreenivasagopalan Ananthakrishna Vs. Meenakshi Tripurari
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. An interim order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur directing the petitioner to pay maintenance pendente lite in proceedings filed under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short the said Act) is under challenge on the ground that there is no jurisdiction conferred under the said Act to award interim maintenance. Another order granting partial access to the petitioner is also under challenge. 3. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 15-12-2002 and out of said wedlock, they have two children. The relations between the petitioner and the respondent having become strained, they started residing separately. The present petitioner has filed proceedings for divorce which are pending. With a view to get a declaration that the petitioner was the guardian of the minor children, he filed proceedings under Section 7 of the said Act. Prayer for grant of custody was also made...
Union of India, through its General Manager, Central Railway and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
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-Union of India challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 16/01/2014, allowing an original application filed by the respondent and directing the petitioners to consider appointing the respondent on compassionate ground. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the son of the second wife of Shri Uttam Gid, who was in the service of the petitioners. Shri Uttam had expired on 06/02/1999. At the time of the death of Shri Uttam, the respondent was a minor. The respondent attained the age of majority on 22/10/2003. In 2011, the respondent made an application to the petitioners, seeking his appointment on compassionate ground. The application filed by the respondent was rejected by the petitioners by an order, dated 26/09/2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the...
Parvatabai @ Shobha Vs. Additional Commissioner, Commissioner Compound ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who stands disqualified from continuing as member of the Gram Panchayat under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act) lays challenge to said adjudication. 3. The petitioner was elected as member of the Gram Panchayat in the elections that were held in October, 2012. It is her case that she was residing along with her father and other family members at house property bearing House No.134, situated at Dudhala which property stands in the name of her father. The respondent No.6 filed an application under provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the said Act praying that the petitioner be disqualified on the ground that encroachment on public land had been made with regard to construction of property bearing House No.134. The petitioner filed a reply stating that the house in question was owned by her father and that she was residi...
Umesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
1. By the present appeal, the appellant has put to challenge judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 60/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. This appeal was admitted on 11.09.2011 and record and proceedings were called in order to find out whether the applicant was entitled to bail. This Court, by order dated 11.11.2014 rejected bail application of the appellant and fixed the appeal for final hearing on 18.11.2014. SUBMISSIONS: 2. In support of the appeal, Mr. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC is clearly illegal and, therefore, accused is entitled to acquittal. In the alternative, he submitted ...
Sachin Tukaram Muneshwar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
1. These are the applications for grant of anticipatory bail filed by various applicants in relation to the offence registered under Sections 376 (2)(n) of the Indian penal Code read with other sections of the Indian penal Code. Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC being the main offence, the claim for grant of anticipatory bail is required to be examined particularly in the light of question of law that arises for consideration. FACTS: Criminal Application No. 309/2015 2. One Ku. P. aged about 21 years lodged report with Police Station Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur and stated therein that when she was taking education in D.Ed. College and residing with her close relative, she had a love affair with applicant-Sachin, who promised her from time to time that he would marry her and would not marry anybody else. In 2008, when she was studying in the 9th standard again, he had extended to her similar promises for marriage and with that promise committed rape on her and she allowed him to do so only...
Dr. Hema Vijay Menon Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary o ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether a mother is entitled to avail maternity leave, though she begets the child through surrogacy. 3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus: The petitioner is a highly qualified Lecturer who has participated in several National and International Seminars and Symposiums in law and is often invited as a guest faculty at several institutions to deliver lectures on various subjects of law. On 28.07.2010, the petitioner lost her only son who was 15 years of age. The petitioner and her husband suffered severe mental trauma due to the loss of their only son and decided to bear a child. The petitioner went through five cycles of In Vitro Fertility (IVF) procedures at Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai, to conceive the child, however, due to certain ...
Parvatibai and Others Vs. The Honourable Minister (Revenue), The State ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 17.10.2013 thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.4 and in turn setting aside order passed by the Additional Commissioner in proceedings under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short the said Code). The respondent no.4 is a Society that is running a High School and Junior College. It made an application for allotment of land admeasuring 0.47 R at Survey No. 386 in terms of Government Resolution dated 30.06.1992. On 08.11.2007 the Collector allotted aforesaid land to the respondent no.4 Society for being used to accommodate the school building and playground. Being aggrieved the present petitioners filed an appeal under Section 247 of the Code. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner found that a water body existed in part of field survey no.386 and the Nistarpatrak reflected suc...
Nanibai and Others Vs. Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
1. This Second Appeal was admitted on 10-02-2009 upon the following substantial questions of law “ i) Whether the respondent/plaintiff has proved that Gajanan Automobiles? was/is a joint Hindu family business of Laxmanrao and Vithalrao? ii) Whether non-inclusion of all alleged joint Hindu family properties in suit by the respondent /plaintiff is fatal? My answer to question no.i) is in the affirmative and question no. ii) in the negative for the following reasons: 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.14-11-2008 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2008 whereby learned District Judge Amravati (the first appellate Court) was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Order in Special Civil Suit No. 286 of 2005, dt.29-02-2006 passed by the trial Court and to pass a decree whereby the plea for partition was allowed. 3. Motiram Navkhare died leaving behind his widow and two sons i.e. Laxmanrao - aged 7 years and Vithal “ aged 1 ...
Rambhau Vs. Yashoda @ Anusuya
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant-husband challenges the judgment of the Family Court, dated 21.03.2006, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant-husband for a decree of divorce under Section 13[1][ia] and [ib] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Few facts giving rise to the Family Court Appeal are stated thus: The appellant-husband filed a Hindu Marriage Petition against the respondent-wife for a decree of divorce under Section 13[1][ia] and [ib] of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.04.1979 at Juni Mangalwari, Nagpur, according to Hindu rites and customs. It is pleaded in the Hindu Marriage Petition that the respondent initially showered all her love and affection on the husband and in reciprocation, the husband also treated his wife with love and affection. It is pleaded that the husband and wife had a good marital life till 1993, and 4 children were born from the said wedlock. The h...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »