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.
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society and Others Vs. Sandip Ram Meghe and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
1. Being aggrieved by order dated 01.08.2015 passed by 8th Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Amravati below Exh.22 in Regular Civil Suit No.178/2015, by which the learned trial Judge held that it has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit and consequently rejected the objection as to the jurisdiction raised by the revision-applicants, the present Civil Revision Application has been filed. 2. In support of this revision application, Mr. Bhuibhar, learned Counsel for the revision applicants vehemently argued that the body of the suit plaint, averments as well as prayers and the reliefs claimed in the suit filed by the non applicants in the matter of removal of the members from the society of the trust are the matters falling under Section 50(1)(iv)(p) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (for the sake of brevity 'Act') and consequently in the absence of consent obtained under Section 51 of the said Act and in view of the bar under Section 80 thereof, the suit was clearly not maintaina...
Suryabhan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Both these appeals take exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Case No.79 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, as could be gathered from the facts of the case, is thus : All the accused, the deceased and the witnesses are relatives. On 11.4.2010, there was a marriage of cousin of Raju Bhaidas Bhat (PW-5) at village Paladhi in Jalgaon District. The accused were also invited for the said marriage. After marriage ceremony, when lunch was served to the guests, oral altercation took place between Jambhir Bhat and accused no.2 Bhikaji @ Bhikan Suryabhan Kharat on account of maintaining registers of pedigree. It is to be note...
Manohar and Others Vs. Ramesh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree 16th March 2013 passed by the learned District Judge9 Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 589/2012, setting aside the judgment decree dated 4.9.2004 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 707/1995, the present Appeal has been filed by the appellants /original defendants in this Court. 2. At the time of admission, this Court had observed thus in last paragraph of its order dated 27th November, 2013:- Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is going on since the year 1992, it would be appropriate that final hearing of the Appeal is expedited and it is accordingly expedited. 3. On the basis of the said order, an early hearing Application was filed. Accordingly, this Court had grated early hearing of the Appeal by order dated 7th August, 2014. When the Appeal was called out for final hearing on 13th August 2014, Shri K.K. Pillai Advocate for respondent no.1 (wr...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chandraprabha and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 138 of 2013 filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,71,800/- together with interest at the rate of 8.50% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization. This award dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Anthony submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding 30% additional compensation on account of loss of future prospects and has also committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8.50% per annum which should not have been more than 7.5%. He has relied upon the deci...
Shashikant Vs. Mahatama Mungsaji Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri I.N. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. 2. Petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the employment of respondent no.1 was transferred earlier from headquarter Pusad to Dhamangaon on 14.06.2013. By order dated 23.06.2014, he has been transferred back from Dhamangaon to Pusad. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2015, he has been transferred again from Pusad to Dhamangaon. 3. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that this shows periodical transfer and hence, is in breach of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. He is relying upon the observations of this Court in judgment reported at 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 307 (Pawar Bhagwantrao Bhivrao vs. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and others). 4. Shri Anjan De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 i...
Seema Vs. Manganese Ore India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. Heard Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, advocate for the petitioner and Shri G.G. Modak, advocate for the respondent. 2. This case shows the apathy of the widow of an employee working in the executive cadre with the respondent Corporation which is a Government of India Undertaking. 3. It is admitted fact that the petitioner's husband Mohammad Arif was appointed as Graduate Trainee Engineer with the respondent Corporation on 21st September, 1988 and in due course of time held post of Senior Manager (Mines) which is an executive post. While posted at Tirodi Mines, Distt. Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) he was missing since 20th November, 2000. According to the petitioner, Mohammad Arif had gone to duty on 20th November, 2000 and did not return. The facts on the record show that the officers of the respondent Corporation had informed the petitioner by the communication darted 10th December, 2000 that Mohammad Arif had left the place of work on 20th November, 2000 and had not reported on duty thereaft...
Gajanan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment dated 21/08/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur in Sessions Trial No.23/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code) and has been sentenced for imprisonment for life. He has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts as can be gathered from the case of the prosecution are that the appellant was married to one Laxmi. As the appellant was having illicit relations with some other lady, he disliked his wife. The appellant used to harass her and used to sent her to her parental home. On 22/04/2011, at about 01:00 p.m., the appellant had beaten his wife-Laxmi and had asked her to leave her house. He thereafter poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. The parents of the appel...
Rehmaniya Urdu Education Society Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Advocate Mr.Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr.Akshay Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.5 by ssuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. The question to be looked into is whether change in placement of petitioner and respondent no.5, respectively, on 4th of June, 2015 by the District Level Committed headed by respondent no.3 for grant of a School is in accordance with law or not. It is not in dispute that both, petitioner and respondent no.5, applied and in first consideration on 3rd of February, 2015, petitioner has been placed at Sr.No.1 while respondent no.5 has been placed at Sr.No.2 for grant of an unaided school at village Dhotra Shinde. 3. As required by the provisions of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 (hereinafter to referred as 2012 Act') this provisional placement was published and objections were invit...
Moreshwar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. These two appeals filed by original accused nos. 1 and 3 take exception to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, dt.7.1.2013 in Sessions Case No.106 of 2011 thereby convicting them for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution story in brief, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus : Waman Bhiwapure (PW-4), a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Thutra, received an information on 21.4.2011 that the dead body of unknown person was lying on the road side. As such, he went to the spot, saw the dead body and informed about the same to Police Station, Gadchandur vide report at Exh.53. Accordingly, A.D. No.9/2011, u/s. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be registered. P.S....
Rameshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary of Rural Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard finally with consent of parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 1. Petitioner presently about 43 years old and a qualified Laboratory Technician in employment of respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad incurred disability (low vision) in 2010 while in employment. The extent of disability is 40%. 2. Proposal to shift the petitioner to a post equivalent in all respects i.e. Extension Officer (Panchayat) was mooted in 2010 and was submitted to State Government. Record shows that on 12th May, 2015 Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati demanded certain clarification from respondent No.3 and it has been furnished on 19.10.2015. The respondent No.3 has pointed out that post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) in open category is lying vacant for direct recruitment. It is also pointed out that qualifications of petitioner are sufficient to enable him to occupy that post. The Chief Executive Officer has expressly mentioned that a po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »