Mumbai Nagpur Court February 2016 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.
Prof. Dr. Balchandra Vs. Chief Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, New D ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to quash and set aside the notifications dt.5.3.2013 and 25.3.2013. The petitioner has also sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Union Public Service Commission to include 'Pali Literature' as an optional subject for UPSC Main examination, 2015. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that 'Pali' is an ancient language having a history of 2500 years. It is further submitted that 'Pali literature' is taught in more than 50 Universities and more than 100 Colleges. It is further submitted that the University Grants Commission has also provided grants for research in 'Pali Literature' to various Scholars. It is, therefore, contention of the petitioner that deletion of 'Pali Literature' from optional subjects was totally arbitrary. 4. In reply, it is the contention of the UPSC that the 'Pali' language came to be deleted as a result of recommendations of Nigavekar Committee. It is submitted that the said...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur M/s. Manganese Ore In ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the department, following four questions have been referred to this Court: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that the payments of Rs.86,554/- made to D.S. Basu of M/s Dastur and Co., and others is a revenue expenditure? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that the payment of Rs.81,885/- made to Mountain States Research and Development U.S.A. is a revenue expenditure ? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that the payment of Rs.8,06,254/- made to Seltrust Engineering Co. Ltd. is a revenue expenditure? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that an amount of Rs.29,52,638/- incurred in construction of house of labourer is a revenue ...
Padmatai Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Develo ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the notification dated 12.2.2015 issued by the respondent no.1 thereby constituting an area within the Amgaon Gram Panchayat area to be a Nagar Panchayat as provided under Section 341(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short the said Act). The petitioner has also sought for direction to the respondent no.1 to declare 'Amgaon' constituted urban area, by amalgamating areas of Gram Panchayats Amgaon, Bangaon, Risama, Kumbhartoli, Padampur, Malhi and Kidangipar as Amgaon Nagar Parishad as provided under subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as under: The village Amgaon was a Gram Panchayat and has been declared as Tahsil headquarter. The area of Gram Panchayat is surrounded by the seven other Gram Pa...
The Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation Circle, Command Area De ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
R.K. Deshpande, J.(Oral) 1. In Complaint (ULPN) No. 248 of 2000, the Industrial Court has granted a declaration that the petitioners are engaged in an unfair labour practise under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in short "the MRTU and PULP Act"). A positive direction has been given to the petitioners to consider the proposal for bringing the complainants on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (in short "CRTE") from the year 1982 i.e. from the date, when they were brought on CRTE as Mazdoors. This judgment and order dated 13.01.2006 passed by the Industrial Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioners employer. 2. The question before the Industrial Court was whether the complainants were actually working on the post of Clerks from the dates of their initial appointments till the completion of 5 years service, so as to bring them on CRTE as Clerks i...
Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Namrata A. Banokar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In the Reference Case No.CGIT/NGP/38/2009, the Labour Court has passed an award on 20.01.2014, holding that the action of the management in not providing employment to the complainant, who is the dependent of the deceased-employee, is unjustified and the complainant is, therefore, entitled to employment in accordance with the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement in force. The Court has directed the petitioner-employer to provide employment to the complainant. 3. As per the decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.3203 of 2012 (Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Lomesh Maroti Khartad), decided on 22.07.2013, the benefit of providing employment on compassionate ground is available to the permanent workers. If it was the claim of the respondent that his father had acquired the status of permanent employee upon completion of continuous service of 240 days, ...
Kashinath and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to decide their representations and to take a policy decision of relaxation of any of the conditions which would come in the way of granting any right, title or interest in respect of forest lands occupied by them. 3. The petitioners have further approached for a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant right and title and 'patta' in respect of forest lands occupied by the petitioners and others on the line of the 'patta' granted to the agriculturists in the adjacent districts of Bhandra and Gadchiroli as per the provisions under Sections 4(3), 4(5) and 4(6) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 4. It is the contention of the petitioners tha...
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Exec ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By notification issued under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 04.01.1992, the land admeasuring 2.75 HR from Survey No. 185 situated at Mouza Tadali, Tq. And District : Chandrapur, was acquired for industrial purpose by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (in short "the M.I.D.C.). The award was passed on 04.05.1995 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.26,500/- per hectare, working out the total compensation payable as Rs.4,18,028/-. 2. In the reference preferred under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 3 of 1996, the learned Judge of the Reference Court by its judgment and award dated 20.12.2003 enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre, which is equivalent to Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare, alo...
Manohar Vs. Dr. Gopal Dhavan, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mineral ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Heard Mr.A.P.Gera, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.D.Samel, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.Rohit Deo, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent nos. 3 to 5. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a public spirited citizen, seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the proceedings of respondent no.3 whereby respondent no.1 has been re-employed and also seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against respondent no.1. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that reemployment of respondent no.1, after he attained the age of 60 years, for a further period of two years is totally impermissible in view of the Handbook for Personnel Officers (published by DOP and T of the Government of India containing instructions on the grant of extension of service/reemployment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation). Learned Counsel submits that respondent no.2/Mineral Explor...
Madhukar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.1.2005 in Special Case No.2/1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Wardha, by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/ws. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, further R.I. for two moths and was further convicted for offence punishable u/s. 13 (1)(d) r/ws. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for two months, which were directed to be run concurrently, the present Appeal was filed by the appellant. FACTS : 2. It is the prosecution case that the appellant-Madhukar Gedam, was working as a Talathi (Patwari) of Halka No.21, Mouza Kharannga (Gode) Tahsil and District: Wardha. Complainant-Kundan Champatrao Sukalkar of village Karanji (Kazi) suc...
Sujit Bhurandas Borkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 28th January, 2015 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2011, convicting and sentencing the appellant, accused, Sujit Bhurandas Borkar, of offences punishable under Sections:- [a] 363, Indian Penal Code [Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months], [b] 366, Indian Penal Code, [Rigorous Imprisonment for five years, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months], and [c] 376, Indian Penal Code [Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months], the present appeal has been filed by the appellant Sujit Borkar. 2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that record of the case shows that the appellant, accused, was not in a normal mental state f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »