Mumbai Nagpur Court August 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.
Vijay Kewalramji Randive Vs. The Chairman and Competent Authority Vidh ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J. ) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the charge-sheet dated 21.04.2016 thereby informing the petitioner about the charges levelled against him. 3. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was in employment of the respondents. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 8.3.2016. The petitioner replied to the same on 22.3.2016. However, a communication was addressed to the petitioner on 31.03.2016 informing him that since he would stand retired on 31.03.2016, the provisions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Clause 45 of Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Regulations") are invoked against him. Subsequently a charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 21.04.2016. It could thus be clearly seen that though the show cause wa...
Offshore Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and An ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
1. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bhutada, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. The applicant is before this Court seeking modification of the order dated 9-12-2015 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 787/2014 and substituting the name of either of three persons who are proposed as arbitrator in the application in place of Shri Lalit Mohan who was initially appointed as an Arbitrator by this Court. This application raises an interesting issue before this Court. The parties were before this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 787/2014 filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') praying for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicant referred to agreement between the parties and more particularly, clause 2.21 which provided that the dispute shall be referred to the arbitrator fo...
Vivekant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Government Resolution dt.1.6.2016 to the extent it abolishes the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on the Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee established for the purpose of caste verification. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Government Resolution insofar as it deletes the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police, is in conflict with Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2012"). It is further the contention of the petitioner that the said is also in conflict with the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional ...
Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railway and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The Indian Railways is before this Court in the present writ petition. The challenge in the petition is to the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1238/1994 dated 16.06.1999. 2. By the impugned judgment, the tribunal had partly allowed the original application filed by the respondent and thereby respondent's dismissal from service was converted into the compulsory retirement with effect from the date of order of dismissal. 3. Such of the facts, which are necessary to address the challenge raised by the petitioner in respect of the judgment impugned borne out from the record are stated hereunder. 4. The respondent herein was working as Travel Ticket Examiner in the South Eastern Railways. On 04.05.1983, a memorandum bearing No.COM/OS/ClIII/TTE/NGP/SR/83/14 was issued to the respondent from the office of Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Nagpur South Eastern Railway. By the said memorandum, it was informed to the ...
M/s. K.K. Vidyut Vs. The union of India Through its Ministry of Railwa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner firm has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent nos.2 to 4 in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. 3. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 had invited tenders for supplying and stacking of 1,50,000 cum machine crushed ballast between Seoni (including) (conforming to specifications of machine crushed stone ballast issued by RDSO, corrected up to date) in cess, in formation or in yards, in connection with gauge conversion between Chhindwara-Nainpur vide tender Notice No. CEC/BSP/2015-16/60. The tenders were to be submitted in two envelopes. The first envelope was pertaining to the technical and financial capacity of the bidder and the second envelope was with regard to the price bid. In response to the tender notice dated 2nd September 2015 as may as eight bidders had submitted their bids. The first envelopes were opened on 23rd December, 2...
Janshakti Shikshan Sanstha, Pandharkawada, Distt. Yavatmal through its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Whether an appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to the Act for the sake of brevity) could be filed by an employee against an order of termination before the date on which the termination is to take effect, is the question that is required to be answered by this Division Bench. Though a writ petition challenging the order of the University and College Tribunal in an appeal under Section 59 of the Act needs to be placed before the learned Single Judge for hearing in view of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the occasion for placing this matter before the Division Bench is referable to the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.8.2000. After disagreeing with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the judgment, reported in 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. page 707, the learned Single Judge hearing this petition on 22.8.2000 requested the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice, that the matter should be placed before the Divisi...
Wamanrao Vyankatrao Kawane and Another Vs. Vyankatrao Karkaji Kawane a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Regular Civil Suit No. 553 of 1995 was filed by Narayan Vyankat Kawane against his father Vyankatrao for possession based on title on the basis of partition effected on 11.04.1976. The suit was dismissed on 20.02.2001. Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2001 filed by Narayan was also dismissed on 31.07.2002. Hence, the Second Appeal No.491 of 2002 by Narayan, the original plaintiff. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 1996 was filed by Wamanrao against his father Vyankatrao and two brothers Atmaram and Narayan, for declaration of title and it was dismissed on 06.03.1998. Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 1999 preferred by Wamanrao was dismissed by the lower appellate Court by its common judgment and order dated 31.07.2002. Hence the Second Appeal No. 483 of 2002 is preferred by Wamanrao the original plaintiff. 3. The dispute in both these matters is between the father Vyankatrao and the sons Wamanrao, Atmaram and Narayan. The Courts below have held that the partition deed dated 11....
Bhupendra @ Golu Vs. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Ajni
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The allegation is that the present applicant along with other accused persons, being a member of an organized crime syndicate, jointly made assault upon the complainant-Amol Mehar on 29/05/2015, in which assault, the complainant suffered some injuries but managed to survive those injuries. On the basis of complaint lodged by Amol Mehar, initially offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 294 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3, 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were registered. Later on, the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'the MCOC Act') were also invoked. Accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act came to be additionally registered against this applicant and other members of the crime syndicate. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the...
Central Bank of India Vs. W.S. Deshmukh, Receiver and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Insolvency Case No.3 of 1971 decided on 31.01.1984 by the trial Court, the appellant is held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.5,39,509.92 as a secured creditor as against its total claim of Rs.22,64,402.95 outstanding on 28.01.1980 against the insolvent. The Misc. Civil Appeal No.21 of 1984 preferred under Section 75 of the Insolvency Act was dismissed on 08.12.1995. Hence, this appeal under Section 75(1) of the Insolvency Act. This appeal is to be treated as in the nature of second appeal as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, it was admitted by this Court on 04.04.2001 framing the substantial questions of law as under: (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant Bank could have been held disentitled to recover its secured dues because of any act of negligence in not properly securing the goods which were allegedly lost because of the theft at the factory premises and at the shipyard ? (2) Whether the re...
The Amravati Zilla Parishad Shikshan Sahakari Bank Ltd. through its Ge ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the adjudication of the claim for damages in lieu of reinstatement awarded to the respondent in the dispute filed by the respondent under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the said Act ]. 3. The respondent was appointed on the post of clerk at the petitioner Bank which is duly registered under the provisions of the said Act. The respondent was thereafter promoted to the post of Branch Manager. During his course of service, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him on charges of financial misappropriation. After issuing a show cause notice on 27-3-2000 and pursuant to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Bank terminated the services of the respondent on 28-4-2000. The respondent being aggrieved filed a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act before the Cooperative Court seeking a declaration that the re...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »