Mumbai Nagpur Court September 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.
Nagpur Mahanagar Palika Samanvaya Chikitsak Sangh, through its General ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Industrial Court has dismissed the Complaint (ULP) Nos. 590 and 591 of 1987 by its common judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2009. The claim in the complaints was for direction to the employer to implement the agreement reached by resolution dated 07.11.1974 in the matter of pay-scale and to pay the members of the complaint Union salary in the scale of Rs.680-1500/- equivalent to the salary payable to the Medical Officers working under the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that the members of the complainant Union are the Ayurvedic Doctors claiming parity in the scale of pay with M.B.B.S Medical Officers. The Industrial Court has held that the members of the complainant Union cannot be called as "employees' within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (in short "B.I.R. Act"). 2. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court can be invoked by the "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of...
Amarbin Salam Chaus Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present appeal, the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed upon him is questioned by the appellant. The appellant is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 25.04.2014 for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and for that he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 days. The appellant was further found to be guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and on that count, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts, which are necessary for the decision of the appeal are incorporated hereinbelow. Wahida w/o Abraham Chaus (PW1) is the victim. She is wife of the appellant. Their marriage took place on 25.05.2000. At the relevant time, the couple was residing at Sonapur. T...
Sunil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Exception is taken to the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 130 of 2012 Dt.29-4-2014 by which the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304I of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Factual Matrix : 2. Bharat Ninaji Thakare (P.W.6) was attached to police station, Rajura. On 29/7/2012 he was present in the police station. That day Sangeeta Durge (P.W.1) came to police station and lodged her oral report. The report was reduced into writing. It is at Exh.12. The report was disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, a crime was registered by Bharat Thakare vide Crime No. 126 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant. Printed F.I.R. is at Exh.13. Sangeeta Durge (P.W.1) is the ...
Vidarbha Bottlers Private Limited and Others Vs. Devilal Hardeolal Jai ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the said Act) takes exception to the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the learned Member, Company Law Board Mumbai (for short the Board). By said order, the parties to the proceedings were directed to make sealed bids to buy/sell their shareholdings. 2. A brief reference to the relevant facts would be necessary. The appellant No.1 is a Company registered under provisions of the said Act. One group of shareholders comprises of appellant Nos.2 to 11 while the other group comprises respondent Nos.1 to 5. Both the groups had filed proceedings before the Board under provisions of Sections 397 and 398 of the Act. The appellants™ group had filed Company Petition No.46 of 2005 while respondents™ group had filed Company Petition No.46 of 2005. Both these petitions were heard together and by judgment dated 7-5-2008, the Board dismissed Company Petition No.76/2007 and allowed Company Petition No...
Vilas @ Bandu Punjabrao Misal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.354 of 2011 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Kalpana is wife of the accused. They were married prior to 15 years of the incident. They were blessed with son Sanket and daughter Prajakta out of the said wedlock. It is the prosecution case that Kalpana was working as Peon in St. Paul School, Nagpur whereas the appellant was without any work and addicted to liquor. The matrimonial relations between the accused and the deceased were strained because of the vices of the accused. The accused used to demand money to deceased Kalpana for his vices and on refusal, the ...
Akola Gujrati Samaj Vs. Akola Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the Counsel for the parties. 3. The question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Civil Court after holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit can direct return of the plaint for presenting the same before the proper forum. 4. This appeal filed under provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) takes exception to the order passed by the trial Court whereby it has held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as filed and then directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for being presented before the proper forum. 5. The facts relevant for adjudication of the appeal are that it is the case of the appellant that it is a society registered under provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also a public trust under provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is running an educational institu...
Nilesh @ Nilikrao Ukarda Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: (Prasanna B. Varale, J.) 1. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 17.12.2012 in Sessions Trial No. 107/2010, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The appellant/accused has been acquitted of the other offences viz. Sections 376 read with section 511, 379, 403, 507 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present a...
Rashtriya Shikshan Sanstha and Others Vs. Sheela and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri M.P. Lala, advocate for the petitioners, Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, advocate for respondent no.1 and Shri S.M. Bagde, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 Education Officer. 2. The respondent no.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Nutan Vidyalaya, Gondia administered by the petitioner no.1 Society on 7th December, 1999. It is undisputed that the appointment of the respondent no.1 was made after following the prescribed procedure. The appointment of the respondent no.1 was approved by the Education Officer by the communication dated 8th March, 2000. The services of the respondent no.1 were terminated by the order dated 5th December, 2001 w.e.f. 7th December, 2001 on the ground that the performance and behaviour of the respondent no.1 during the probation period was not satisfactory. The respondent no.1 filed appeal before the School Tribunal challenging the termination order. The School Tribunal, by the impugned order, has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent ...
Deepak son of Shankarrao Borkar Vs. State of Maharshtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Appellant is convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, on 10th May, 2013, in Special Case No. 7 of 2012, by which he has convicted him of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) of Indian Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 452, Indian Penal Code, and on that count, he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in lieu thereof, Simple Imprisonment for three months. The learned Judge ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. The facts, which are necessary for the decision of this appeal, are enumerated herein below:- 2. Sau. Sunanda [PW 4] is the mother of the prosecutrix. On the day of the incident, namely 15th October, 2011, her husband left the house for a labour work of harvesting Soyabean o...
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Finance Department and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. SUBMISSIONS: 2. The State of Maharashtra has preferred the instant writ petition against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No.755/2012 by which the MAT stayed the departmental enquiry vide chargesheet dated 28.06.2012 till Criminal Case No.13/2012 is decided. 3. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Ukey, learned A.G.P. assailing the impugned order, vehemently submitted that there is a clear cut error of law committed by the MAT by relying on the decision in Capt. M.Paul Anthony. vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd; AIR 1999 SC 1416, which decision was, at later point of time, explained by the Apex Court in several subsequent decisions. He submitted that there is no straight jacket formula or rule anywhere that if a criminal case is filed and it is pending, the departmental enquiry should necessarily be stayed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »