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.
N. Sujata and Others Vs. Sarat Srikanta Mahanta and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. On 30.03.2015, this Court issued notice for final disposal of the matter. The Respondents are served. Shri A.J.Pophaly, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.3 and Shri J.A.Anthony, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.6. None appeared for other respondents. In view of the fact that the notice for final disposal of the matter was issued, it is not necessary to issue fresh notice to the Respondents who are not present before this Court. Hence, Admit. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 waives service of notice. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2008, decided on 22.09.2014, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, passed an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, holding the owner of the jeep bearing registration No. MH-34-D-2034 liable to pay the amount of Rs.27,21,800/- inclusive of 'no fault liability' together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date...
C. Padmawati Naidu and Others Vs. Friends Co-operative Housing Society ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 307/1999 passed by the learned District Judge-9, Nagpur, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1999 in Special Civil Suit No. 564/1985 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the original defendants. 2. The Appeal has been taken up for final hearing as almost all the appellants are senior citizens and the litigation commenced in the year 1985, on the motion made by the counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent no.1/plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of contract and for possession, stating that an agreement was executed for the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff on 30.1.1975 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/per acre and on the date of agreement by way of earnest, an amount of Rs. 6,000/was paid. The sale deed was to be executed within a period of two years i.e. on or before 30.1.1977....
Ujwala Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is the widow of one Shri Rupchand Thakre, has approached this Court challenging the communications dated 08/04/2015 and 16/04/2015 by which the respondents intended to recover certain amounts to which deceased employee was entitled under the provident fund scheme as well as towards gratuity. This recovery is sought to be made on the ground that the pay fixation of said employee had been wrongly done. 3. The husband of the petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the respondent No.1-Corporation. He expired on 04/06/2014. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondents for receiving various service benefits including the amounts of gratuity and provident fund. On 08/04/2015 the respondent No.2 issued a communication stating therein that the pay fixation that was effected with regard to the ...
Hind Finance Industries and Investment Limited Vs. Vinayakrao and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This Court on 5th September, 2005 framed the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the renewal of the licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act is required to be obtained before the date of advancing of the loan? 2. Whether subsequent renewal of licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act specifically covering under the date on which the loan was advanced is enough compliance? 3. Whether in respect of the suit on a mortgage, licence under Bombay Money Lenders Act is required? 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1996, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati and confirmed by order dated 1.3.2002, passed by the 2nd Adhoc, Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No.378/2000. 3. In support of the appeal Mr. V.G. Bhonsule, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that renewal of licence under the Money Lenders Act is on an application to be filed for renewal thereof every year ...
Anil Laxman Hichami Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. By the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in S.C. No. 06 of 2012 dated 30.09.2013, by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Consequent to the conviction, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. We have heard Advocate Mir Nagman Ali for the appellant and Shri V.A. Thakare, learned APP for the State. With their able assistance we have gone through in detail the record and proceedings and also the notes of evidence with a view to re-appreciate the entire prosecution case. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that though there are two written dy...
Vasant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated 17.1.2013 in Sessions Trial No.199 of 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge-12, Nagpur. By the impugned judgment, appellant Vasant Bhalavi is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count it is directed that he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under : From the night hours of 1.2.2012 to 10:00 hours of 2.2.2012, at police station Sonegaon, Shri Vishwas Subhash Jadhav (PW 9), Polic...
Sarita Vs. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, through its Registrar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1. Whether the performance of a student at a particular examination could be cancelled and consequential orders could be passed in view of the cancellation order, without granting an opportunity to the said student, is the question that arises for consideration in the instant petition. 2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor and also a Member on the Board of Studies, had appeared as an examinee in M.A. Part-I examination in Marathi subject, conducted by the respondent-Amravati University. The examination centre for the petitioner was C.M. Kadhi Kala Mahavidyalaya, Paratwada and the roll number of the petitioner was 02674. While the petitioner was solving the paper of 'Arvachin Kavita' on 19.04.2014, the invigilator found a chit near the desk of the petitioner and a complaint was registered agai...
Chandrashekhar Vs. Vice-Chairman and Joint Commissioner, Scheduled Tri ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 21/01/2016, thereby respondent No.1-Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, however, has given up his claim with regard to challenge the order disputing his caste invalidation and has now restricted his claim in the present petition only for protecting his service. 4. The petitioner, claiming to be belonging "Halba-Scheduled Tribe", came to be appointed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the year 1997. Since the petitioner claimed to be belonging Scheduled Tribe, his caste claim was referred to respondent No.1-Committee for scrutiny. The Committee has found that the petitioner belongs to "Halba-Koshti" and not "Halba-Scheduled Tribe". 5. Be that as it may. The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. St...
Sneha Fulchand Hargude and Another Vs. Joint Director of Technical Edu ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally, as the notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents on 20/11/2015 and the respondents are duly served. 2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the communication of the respondent No.3-College of Pharmacy, dated 18/11/2015, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners for permission to appear at the M.Pharm., Part-I Examination, on the directions of the University. 3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus The petitioners had appeared at the B.Pharm. Final Examination in Summer 2015 and were declared unsuccessful in some of the subjects. The petitioners, therefore, applied for revaluation in terms of the Direction of the Nagpur University, bearing No.5 of 2004. It is the case of the petitioners that though the revaluation result is required to be declared within a period of 45 days, the result was not declared by the University within a reaso...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›