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.
Nitesh Pundlikrao Kathe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant / convict challenges judgment and order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 149/2013 holding him guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life as also imposing fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. He is also found guilty of offence under Section 315 of Indian Penal Code, but, no separate sentence is awarded because of the larger sentence, punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, already imposed. 2. We have heard Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant / convict and Shri Thakre, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. 3. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel submitted that the circumstances from A to J looked into by the trial Court as constituting chain do not form a chain of implicating ...
Madhukar Ganpatrao Wankhede (since deceased through its legal heirs) a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Regular Civil Suit No. 2005 of 1986, the trial Court on 20.02.1988 passed a decree for partition and directed an appointment of Commissioner to effect the partition. The parties are held entitled to their shares as specified in paragraph 11 of the judgment, which is reproduced below. "11. The defendants No. 7 is the widow of deceased Ganpatrao and in view of provision of Hindu Succession Act, after the death of Ganpatrao, she is also entitled to the share in the suit house as described in plaint para 5. The plaintiff is entitled to the share in the suit house 5/12 and defendant No. 6 and 7 1/12 and defendants No. 1 to 5 in common they have to share in 5/12 and all defendants 1 to 5 have equal right in 5/12 share, therefore, my findings to issue No. 1 and 3 are in affirmative, and pass the following order. ORDER 1. The suit is decreed. 2. Looking to the relations of the parties, there is no order as to costs. 3. A Commissioner be appointed in this case to effect par...
M/s. Aditya Developers, Through its Partner, A.S. Ananthakrishnan Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was the judgment debtor before the Consumer Forum, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Consumer Forum on 19/08/2014, thereby rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for dismissing the application filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the respondent, the grounds of which were that no penalty could be imposed upon the petitioner, the decree dated 17/01/2007 had been rendered inexecutable and that cognizance of the offence could not be taken, as the application for imposition of the penalty was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. 4. It is seen from the impugned order that even though two specific grounds were taken for challenging the action of the Consumer Forum in taking cognizance of the application filed under Section 27 of the ...
Bharti and Others Vs. Lilaben
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioners are the landlords who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 303 of 2000 on 10.10.2000, seeking decree of eviction and possession of the suit premises, which is a shop block No. 4, located on ground floor of the building and occupied by tenant Shri Labhshankar Joshi, for carrying out the business under the name and style of Laxmi Trading Corporation. The eviction and possession was sought on two grounds i.e. (i) that the landlords require the suit premises for bonafide use and (ii) that there was non user of the suit premises without reasonable cause for more than six months immediately preceding the date of filing of the suit as contemplated by Section 16 (1) (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The trial Court passed a decree on 8th April, 2005, for eviction and possession against the respondent, the widow of Shri Labhshankar Joshi, the original tenant, who expired on 24th April, 1999. The tenancy was tran...
Rajendra Sitaram Lakade and Others Vs. Returning Officer for the Elect ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the judgment of the trial Court in Election Petition No.4/2014 that was filed by the petitioners under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By the said judgment, the aforesaid election petition has been dismissed. 2. Facts found relevant are that in the elections held at Gram Panchayat, Inzhala, from Ward No.2 there were three categories of members were to be elected. These categories were reserved for Scheduled Caste (woman), General Category and Ladies (General Category). The petitioners contested the aforesaid elections from Ward No.2 and on declaration of results, they were held to have been defeated. Being aggrieved they filed an election petition under Section 15 of the said Act. In the said election petition it was pleaded that as the names of the contesting candidates in the e...
Dahiben Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. The facts in brief are that one Smt. Jankibai, the predecessor of the respondent Nos.3A to 3D had moved an application on 16/03/2004 under provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the said proceedings, it was prayed that the sale deed dated 29/04/1965 executed by her husband in favour of the petitioner be declared void as the same was executed by a Tribal in favour of a non-Tribal. The Tahsildar on 26/12/2013 allowed the application and directed restoration of the land in question in favour of the Tribal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6 of the said Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The notice issued to Smt. Jankibai was returned with an endorsement that said respondent had expired. On m...
Dharmasheela Vs. Mahendra Education Society, through its Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner-employee, Shri S.Y. Deopujari, Advocate for the respondent No.1-Society, Shri V.A. Dhabe, Advocate for the respondent No.2-School and Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner had been working in the respondent No.2-School administered by the respondent No.1-Society since 1995 as an Assistant Teacher. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Education Officer. The petitioner acquired the status of confirmed employee. Some memos/show cause notices were issued to the petitioner since October 2007 and then on 05-07-2010 the services of the petitioner were terminated without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner filed appeal before the School Tribunal. In the appeal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application (Exhibit No.17) seeking permission to prove misconduct of the petitioner before th...
Mahendra Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gondia, dated 11th of March, 2013, in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2012, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under: Chambharu Mohan Raut (PW 1) is the father of deceased Maheshwari. Her marriage was solemnized with the appellant in the month of May, 2011. Chambharu lodged his oral report (Exh.9) on 10th of June, 1992 with the Police Station Duggipar of district Gondia. The said report was disclosing a commission of a cognizable offence, hence a Crime was registered vide Crime No.57 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the India...
Bhavna Agro Products and Services Private Limited (Gat No. 47) Vs. The ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the appellant, Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for respondent No. 3, Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for intervenor No. 1 and Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for intervenor No. 2. 2. With consent, the Letters Patent Appeal is admitted and heard finally. Appellant is a Private Limited Company, which desires to set up a Sugar Mill and for that purpose needs Aerial Distance Certificate as contemplated by Clause 6A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Sugarcane Order). The effort made by it failed as the authority has found that the Aerial Distance between two chimneys of factories was not taken into account. The chimneys of proposed Sugar Plant/ Factory of the petitioner has to be at the distance of 25 kms. from the chimney of existing sugar factory in the area. 3. This was questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 858 of 2012 and th...
M/s. Armor's Developers Pvt. Ltd., through its Director's and Another ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 4-12-2015 passed by the trial Court whereby the respondents herein were permitted to deposit the balance amount of consideration in terms of the decree for specific performance passed in Special Civil Suit No.706/2003 by extending the period of such deposit by one month. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondents are the original plaintiffs who had filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 1-9-1997. The trial Court on 6-1-2012 decreed the suit and granted relief of specific performance. The respondents were directed to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.96,000/- within a period of two months from the said judgment. The petitioners were consequently directed to execute the sale deed of plot no.13 within a period of two months of the said judgment. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »