Mumbai Nagpur Court March 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.
M/s. Nisar Sons, Through its Proprietor, Qumar Ahmed Siddique and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, five petitioners seek quashing of re-auction notice dated 21st of January, 2016 and an order dated 27th of January, 2016 cancelling allotment of sand ghats in their favour. This Court has, on 3rd of February, 2016, issued notice in the matter and while permitting re-auction by respondents, directed that no allotment be done in favour of successful bidder without permission of the Court. This interim order continues to operate even today. 2. Intervenor respondent no.4 Pradip Dhengre and Intervenor respondent no.5 Vardharaja Pilley claim that in consequential re-auction, they are the highest bidders entitled to allotment of sand ghats at Waki-A and Juni Kamptee-A. 3. This Court has accordingly permitted them to be impleaded as intervenors. 4. Looking to the nature of controversy and as requested by parties, we have heard learned Senior Advocate Shri C.S.Kaptan with Advocate ...
Mithila Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
P.C. 1. Heard Shri Shyam Dewani, learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/ State. 2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in crime registered against her for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999. 3. Initially the crime was registered against the applicant and other co-accused for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court, by the order dated 09-03-2016, directed issuance of notice to the non-applicant and granted interim protection to the applicant. Subsequently, additional offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 is added in the crime registered against the applicant and co-accused. 4. The accusations against the appli...
Rameshwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No.41/2012, dated 6.4.2013, vide which the learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus: The deceased Motabai was a mother of the appellant and they were residing together at Brahmni, TahsilAmgaon, District-Gondia. Deceased Motabai was receiving pension after the death of her husband. The appellant was not doing anything and was addicted to ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) raises the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was justified in holding that there was an employer-employee relationship between the respondents without giving due weightage to the award passed by the Labour Court on 29th January, 2003 wherein it was held that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties and the said award had reached finality?" Facts giving rise to present appeal are that the respondent No. 1 claims to have been serving as a driver on a vehicle owned by the respondent No. 2. According to the respondent No. 1 on 30/12/1997 he was driving a tanker owned by the respondent No. 2 for fetching diesel from Bhilai. The said vehicle met with an accident near Gondia resulting in the respondent No. 1 sustaining various injuries. According to respondent No. 1 on account of aforesaid accident, he became han...
Sunil Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the P.S.O.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. The appellant who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code) has challenged judgment dated 31/07/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.82 of 2012. The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the material on record is that on 08/05/2012 a call was received by the City Police Station, Chandrapur that a foul smell was coming from a house owned by one Harishchandra Chamate. The appellant along with his family was residing therein. Said Harishchandra came on the spot after which the lock of the door was broken by the police. There the dead body of one Panchafula, the sister of Harishchandra was found. On that basis, said Harishchandra lodged his report on 08/05/2012. 2. After the report was registered, investigation was carried out. A chargesheet was duly filed in which the appellant was arrayed as an a...
Nitin @ Babloo Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16-11-2015 passed by the respondent No.1 under provisions of Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 externing the petitioner from the limits of Amravati City as well as Amravati District for a period of two years. 3. Shri P.V. Navlani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of externment is vitiated inter alia on the following grounds: Firstly, in the show cause notice, it was stated that a Court case that was filed against the petitioner on the basis of Crime No.3007/2009 was pending. It is submitted that the aforesaid matter was disposed of on 14-7-2011 by acquitting the petitioner. Secondly, it is submitted that in the show cause notice there is no reference made to the recording of in camera statements of two witnesses. However, in the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has relied upon...
Ramesh Someshwarrao Tayde and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicants who have been named in Crime No.314 of 2015 registered at Chandur Bazar Police Station, Taluka and District Amravati for the offence under provisions of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Penal Code). The applicants seek quashing of said First Information Report. 3. It is the case of non-applicant no.2 who was the father of one Purushottam that his joint family was possessing various agricultural lands. Some land was standing in the name of his son Purushottam. However, due to drought conditions said Purushottam had taken loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from a bank which had not being repaid. On 07.10.2015 at about 6 P.M. the son of non-applicant No.2 came home and was found to be tense. Said Purushottam told the non-applicant No.2 that he had borro...
The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Washim and Others Vs. Har ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Reference Court, acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has enhanced the compensation for acquisition of land, admeasuring 4 H and 31 R, out of Survey No.103 of Village Waigaul, to Rs.89,500/- per acre (Rs.2,23,750/- per hectare) as against the rate of Rs.23,000/- per hectare awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation for 1,056 orange trees has also been granted at the rate of Rs.700/- per tree. In addition to it, the respondent-claimant is also held entitled to other statutory benefits. While awarding the interest, it is held by the Reference Court that the balance outstanding amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession for one year, and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the entire amount. This award of the Reference Court passed on 7-12-2006 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by the State Governme...
Gajanan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Special Criminal (Atrocity) Case No.15 of 2011, dt.19.10.2013 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 a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, the appellant has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution case, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus : On 15.8.2011, at about 3.00 p.m., Complainant Balchand Anupam Idapate (PW-1) and his father Anupam Idapate were sitting in their house. Accused Gajanan Kisan Bawane came to their house and started chatting with the father of Complainant. The accused demanded money from the father of first informant. Balchand Idapate (PW-1) - the first informant went to his field and returned home at about 3.30 p.m. At that time,...
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Arun Ganpatrao Shen ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Land Acquisition Case No.25 of 1996, under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1968, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for dry crop land. The Reference Court has granted enhancement at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per hectare against the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The acquiring body is before this Court to challenge the enhancement so granted. 2. Shri Agnihotri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant M.I.D.C, the acquiring body, raises the point that, there is no basis to hold that the lands in question were irrigated lands. 3. Shri Agnihotri, however, does not press the point regarding limitation decided by the trial Court on the ground that the Exh. 59 and the other documents placed on record shows that the notice was issued to the claimant asking him to remain present on 04.04.1994 to receive the amount of compensation. Thus, from 04.04.1994 the reference was file...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »