Mumbai Nagpur Court July 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.
Naresh Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. This revision application involves a challenge to the order of the learned Special Judge passed on 10.6.2016 deferring a decision on the objection about the admissibility of certain portion of evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses. During the course of recording of examination-in-chief of PW 7, certain evidence tendered by this witness came to be recorded. This evidence was to the effect that upon inquiry made by the Investigating Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation, accused No.2 Sk.Wahid demanded and accepted the bribe amount on behalf of accused No.1 in this case. An objection was taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that this statement being in the nature of confession made to a police officer was hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and so was inadmissible in evidence. It was also asserted by the learned Senior Counsel, who wa...
Pravin Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. By this criminal writ petition, the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Zarizamni dated 13.4.2016, below Exh.-1, and the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2016 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, in Criminal Revision Case No.10/2016 are questioned. This petitioner is an owner of one JCB Machine, bearing registration No.MH-29-AK-1149 as described in paragraph 1 of this petition about which there is no dispute. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No.45/2016, registered against one person and subsequently against this applicant also for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that co-accused and this applicant, by means of JCB Machine involved in this crime, illegally excavated stones from Mine No.12/2, situated at Za...
Sagar Bhagwat Vs. Kiran
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court which has been maintained by the appellate Court. The respondent no.1 is the owner of a shop in which the respondent no.2 - defendant no.1 and the petitioner no.1 - defendant no.2 were the tenants. The rent agreed to be paid was Rs.2500/- per month. For the sake of convenience, the respondent no.1 would be referred to as the landlady, the petitioner no.1 would be referred to as the tenant and the petitioner no.2 would be referred to as the subtenant. 3. According to the landlady, the tenants were in arrears of rent since August 2006. As these arrears of rent were not paid despite demand being made, on 21-11-2009 the landlady issued a notice under provisions of Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the said Act) to the ten...
Sunil Vs. Amravati Zilla Parishad and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Prayer of 6 petitioners who are employees of Zilla Parishad, Amravati in Writ Petition No.2280/1997, is to quash and set aside their reversion from the post of centre incharge to the post of primary teacher by order dated 10.07.1999 and to continue them on promotional post with all consequential benefits. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2356/1997 challenges very same order of same Zilla Parishad and a later order dated 22.07.1997. He has prayed for similar reliefs. In Writ Petition No.4035/2010, petitioner - Ramdas is employee of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. He seeks setting aside of seniority list prepared by that Zilla Parishad on 26.08.2008 and 24.09.2009, with further direction to said Zilla Parishad to prepare the seniority list as per directions of this Court and to prepare seniority list by accepting date of joining B.Ed. qualification as relevant date. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2349/2011, are employees of Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and they seek a wr...
Nilesh Rampher Shahu and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur, dated 20th of March, 2014, in Session Trial No.41 of 2012, the appellants are before this Court. The appellant no.1 was accused no.1 before the Court below whereas the appellant nos.2 and 3 were accused nos.2 and 3, respectively, during the trial. They will be referred by their original position in the present judgment. By the impugned judgment, the accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused nos.2 and 3 though acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read ...
Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC Ltd.) Vs. Distri ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rao, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri Panpalia, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, for sometime. 2. The question is, whether the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Washim, in Case No.3 of 2014 is in accordance with the Scheme of Section 14 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act). 3. We have perused that order. Respondent No.1 -District Magistrate has found that secured creditor did not produce before it document creating security interest in its favour. Thereafter, on account of confusion about identity of property, he has attempted to obtain report of the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has mentioned that Plot No.62 is not in existence. However, Respondent No.1 has taken note of the fact that copy of sale deed is made available by...
Someshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhandara, dated 30th of August, 2014 in Special Criminal (Atrocity) Case No.13 of 2011, the appellant is before this Court. 2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and for that he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for that he was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. 3. When this matter was placed before us for final hearing, the learned counsel ...
Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Higher and Tech ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Petitioner challenges judgment dated 28.03.2002 delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dismissing T.A. No.784 of 1992. This transfer application was initially presented to this Court as Writ Petition No.666 of 1986. Challenge in said matter before this Court and thereafter before the MAT was to an order of termination dated 31.03.1986 issued by respondent no.2. As per that order, his services were sought to be terminated w.e.f. 04.04.1986 after holding that his performance was found most unsatisfactory. In Writ Petition No.666/1986, this Court stayed the order of termination on 03.04.1986, and hence, petitioner continued in service. After constitution of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, said Writ Petition was transferred to its Nagpur Bench where it came to be registered as Transfer Application No.784/1992. While dismissing that Transfer Application on 28.03.2002, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found order o...
Gajanan Chindhuji Atram Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora in Sessions Case No.5 of 2012, on 22nd of August, 2014. By the said, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. On account of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. As well, for his conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. PROSECUTION CASE :- 2. From the record of the sessions case, the prosecution case can be narrated as under :- (A) Dec...
The Municipal Council and Another Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has in view of the following orders dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5191/2004, 5199 to 5205/2004, 5207 and 5520 of 2004, referred to this Division Bench the following question: 1. An unfortunate situation has arisen in the present matters. Writ Petition No.1209 of 2002 along with connected matters in respect of Class-IV employees of Municipal Council, Tumsar, were allowed by a common judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) on 20-8-2011, and the common order passed by the Industrial Court directing regularization on the basis of Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act read with Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, has been quashed and set aside and the complaints have been dismissed. Same is the view tak...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »