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.
Sudhir Chandrabhan Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present petition challenges the order dated 15th of December, 2015 passed by respondent no.2 - The District Magistrate, Wardha, together with the order dated 29th of January, 2016 passed by the respondent - State. 2. By the order dated 15th of December, 2015, the District Magistrate Wardha, by exercising the powers conferred by sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981 (Amendment 2009) ordered the detention of the petitioner in the District Jail, Wardha. After the approval of the aforesaid order by the State Government vide order dated 22nd of December, 2015, ultimately, the State Government by exercising the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981 (Amendment 2009), by order dated 29th of Januar...
Bhagwan Kisan Wagh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Se ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Since common issues arise in all these writ petitions they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule in each writ petition is made returnable forthwith and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 6466 of 2015 are being referred to. 3. The petitioner claims to be in possession of E Class landGairan land since the year 1990. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 has issued Government Resolution dated 28.11.1991 in the matter of regularisation of encroachments of such lands. In the said Government Resolution a policy decision has been taken to regularise encroachments made between 01.04.1978 and 14.04.1990. According to the petitioner in terms of aforesaid Government Resolution steps were taken by the revenue authorities for regularising the encroachments. No objection was obtained from the Grampanchayat and recommendation for regularis...
Rajendra Tikaram Bagmare Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri T.S. Kene, Advocate for the respondent No.3, Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate alongwith Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for the respondent Nos.4 to 50 and Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the intervenor. 2. The District Deputy Registrar issued the order dated 01-03-2016 directing the preparation of voters' list for the election of committee of respondent No.3-Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. In this communication, it was stated that the names of the persons who were eligible to vote on 23-01-2015 should be included in the voters' list. The names of the respondent Nos.4 to 50 are included in the voters' list and being aggrieved by it, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the District Deputy Registrar fixed 23-01-2015 as the cut-off date and only names of those persons whose names app...
Premlal Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramtek and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner, by the present petition, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.1 thereby externing him from the area of Nagpur (Rural) and Nagpur (City) for a period of two years from the date of order. 3. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the month of August, 2015 calling upon him as to why he should not be externed. In pursuance to this notice, the petitioner remained present on 29.10.2015 and submitted his reply. 4. Perusal of the reply would reveal that though the action was proposed on the basis of the 14 offences, the petitioner out of those offence, he was already acquitted in 8 offences. Perusal of the record reveals that he has also placed on record the judgment of the Court acquitting him. 5. However, perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order states that the petitioner has been acquitted ...
Vijaya Ukarda Athor (Athawale) Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
Oral Judgment:(Kum. I.K. Jain, J.) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-09-2012 passed by respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation appointing respondent no.3 and declaring petitioner ineligible for the compassionate appointment as she got married. 2. Briefly stated the facts are; Late Ukarda Athor (Athawale) was working as a Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Amravati. He had two wives namely Shantabai and Kuntabai. Ukarda died on 18-06-1997. Petitioner Vijaya is daughter of Ukarda through his first wife Shantabai. Respondent no.3 is son of Ukarda through second wife Kuntabai. 3. After the death of Ukarda, Shantabai submitted an application on 29-12-1997 to respondent no.2 stating therein that her daughter is 17 years old and on her attaining majority she may be appointed on compassionate ground in place of her father. On 19-03-1998, after petitioner attained majority she submitted an application in the prescribed form to respondent no.2 for her appointment on compassionat...
Harish and Others Vs. Kiranlata
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that while issuing process, by the order passed on 12th January, 2015, the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola has not followed the mandate of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has been newly amended by the Amendment Act, 2005 and, therefore, the order is vitiated. He also submits that when it is an admitted fact that all the applicants, who are the proposed accused persons are not the residents of the place within the territorial jurisdiction of Akola Court, this very fact required the learned Magistrate, as per Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code, to postpone the issuance of process and make an enquiry either by himself or investigation through a Police Officer in order to find out as to whether or not there is sufficient material for proceeding further in the matter. Since this has not been done by the learned Magistrate, the impugned ...
Sahebrao Rangrao Bawane and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Both the appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Achalpur vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2014 in Sessions Trial No.92/2013 for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the sentence imposed upon them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- by each of them and in default it is directed that they shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case is as under: Oral report is lodged by Purushottam Wasudeo Mesare (PW2). The oral report is at Exh.-22. The oral report was taken by Dnyandeo Chaudhari (PW8), who was attached to Police Station, Paratwada as API. On the basis of the said report dated 12.05.2013, Dnyandeo Chaudhari registered a crime against the accused persons. The printed FIR is at Exh.-23. The crime was registered for an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide Crime No.11...
United Church of Northern India Trust Association, through its lawful ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner original plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 10-1-2013 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.54/2012 whereby the said appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 defendant no.1 under provisions of order XLIII Rule 1(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short, the Code) has been allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the Code. 3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the challenge raised in the writ petition are that the petitioner is an Association of Trusts of Northern India constituted under the Companies Act, 1913. It is also registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The suit property consisting of a structure on the land owned by the petitioner was in occupation of the respondents. According to the petitioner, the said respondents had no right to continue in occupation of th...
Kashinath Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The appellant is before this Court since he has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2014 in Sessions Trial No.28/2012 by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, as it is unfurled d...
Pradeep Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.487/2011 dated 24.04.2014 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Mayabai and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Nandabai and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. He is also convicted for an offence punishabl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »