Mumbai Nagpur Court September 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.
Chandanlal Mangalprasad Jaiswal and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (Common) 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. By impugned order dated 08.08.2016, CLIII license possessed by the petitioners has been cancelled in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 54 (1)(c) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In the order impugned, certain reports have been relied upon, which undisputedly were not supplied to the petitioners. It is merely on the basis of data reflected in paragraph (3) of the order impugned about the increase in sale of country liquor within a span of one year that the inference has been drawn about the possibility of illegal sale of liquor in prohibited Chandrapur District. The existence of an alternate remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act in such a case not be of much consequence. 3. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondents states that all the documents relied upon in the order impugned for taking action...
Central India AYUSH Drugs Manufacturers Association and Others Vs. Sta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that Rule 17 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 does not apply to the Indian entities or body corporates. In the alternate, it is prayed that to the extent the said Rule envisages equitable sharing of benefits by the Indian entities, it should be declared ultra vires to the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and, therefore, unconstitutional. Further declaration sought is, that the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations for short) apply only to transactions involving non-Indian entities and the same do not apply to the Indian entities not treading any biological resources with non-Indian entities. By amendment, a prayer to declare said regulations ultra vires to Sections 23 and 24 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (h...
Ashok Vs. Arun and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Regular Civil Suit No.836 of 1990, styled as one for partition, possession and mesne profits, the Trial Court passed a decree for possession on 17-2-1994 holding that the respondent-plaintiff shall be entitled to possession of the suit property consisting of southern side of three rooms totally admeasuring 32' x 10' out of Municipal House No.1446 on Plot No.9, situated at Subhash Nagar, Nagpur, from the appellant-defendant. The defendant was directed to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and the enquiry was also ordered into the mesne profits. In Regular Civil Appeal No.212 of 1994, decided on 17-7-2003, the decree passed by the Trial Court has been maintained by dismissing the appeal. Hence, the original defendant is before this Court. 2. The dispute in the suit is between the two real brothers, and 15-9-2016: the plaintiff claims that the suit plot No.9, situated at Subhash Nagar, Nagpur, was purchased jointly in the name of the defendan...
Anant Gunvantrao Sable Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Minis ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
1.In view notice for final disposal, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. 2.The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is : Whether the petitioner, by virtue of having let out premises jointly owned by him to the respondent no.4 Co-operative Bank, can be said to be disqualified to hold the post of Director under the provisions of Section 73CA (1) (vi) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short, referred as the said Act ]? The aforesaid question arises in view of the following facts:- 3.The petitioner has been elected as a member of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.4 the Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is the case of the respondent no.5 that on 6th March, 2010, the Managing Committee of the said Bank passed a resolution by which it was resolved to shift the Surji Branch of the Bank to Anjangaon. The Branch was shifted to a building o...
Prashant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking his release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The allegations against this applicant and others against whom crime bearing No.156/2014 has been registered at Police Station Ambazari on the basis of complaint lodged by one Shri Vivek Ashok Pathak are that the applicant being the Director of Wasankar Wealth Management Private Limited (WWMPL for short) and also in charge of other companies of which he is either the director or proprietor, by making a false representation knowing it to be false, to the gullible investors made them invest their hard-earned money in the various investment schemes floated by his companies and did not return the money so invested in accordance with the promises given by him and thus committed offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and fraudulent defaults punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of the Maharas...
Sumati @ Asha and Others Vs. Yashodhara and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. By this petition, the petitioners-original plaintiffs have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 20th July, 2015 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exh.209 in Special Civil Suit No.126/2006 thereby allowing the application for adducing the secondary evidence in respect of Will dated 6.11.1997 and also the order passed by the same Court on 2nd September, 2015 refusing to review the order dated 20th July, 2015. 5. The petitioners filed civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.126/2006 seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction. In this suit, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the original defendants. The respondents appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 along with their written statement also filed counter claim seeking 1/4t...
Santaji Yuvak Bigar Sheti Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Dewanan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The respondent was prosecuted for dishonour of cheque bearing No.088739 dated 17/10/2012 issued by him for Rs.1,07,000/-, which was drawn on Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank, Zilla Parishad Branch at Nagpur and issued in favour of the appellant. On merits of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class found that the complainant/appellant failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent for legally recoverable debt and, therefore, acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by his judgment and order dated 16/01/2015. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate has taken an erroneous view that the debt represented by the amount of the cheque in question was not legally recoverable as it was barred by limitation period of three years. He submits that the Limitation Act is a general statute and although i...
Tantrik Shikshan Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs. The Assi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3rdDecember, 2014 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour in exercise of powers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [for short the Act of 1948 ]. By the said order, the petitioner has been directed to pay minimum wages to the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 3. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner-Society is duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. This Society, as per its bye-laws, is functioning on 'No profit; No loss' basis. Its object is to advance loans to its members who comprise of employees working with the Industrial Training Institutes. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 claim to be in employment with the Society and, according to them, they were not being paid wages as per the Act of 1948. The said respondents, therefore, on 8th January, 2013 moved the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour under th...
Indian Coffee Workers Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Albert and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971) under Schedule IV Item 9 is maintainable for a declaration that non-compliance of the judgment in an earlier complaint filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 would amount to an unfair labour practice. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition can be briefly stated thus: The respondent Nos.1 to 4 were in employment with the petitioner. Their services came to be terminated by an order dated 30/11/1992. This act of termination was challenged by them by filing separate complaints under Section 28 of the Act of 1971. By a common judgment dated 24/09/1996, the Labour Court allowed all the complaints and held that by terminating the services of the said respondents...
Sarika Vs. Sachin
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 20.12.2011 allowing a petition filed by the respondent for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the First Appeal filed by the appellant, the respondent has filed a Cross Objection for seeking the custody of the minor child as the Family Court has held that the custody of the minor child, would remain with the appellant. 2. Few facts giving rise to this Family Court Appeal and the Cross Objection are stated thus: The appellant-wife (hereinafter referred to as the wife for the sake of convenience) and the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the husband ) were married at Nagpur as per the Hindu rites and custom on 20.02.2009. A son by name Anvesh was born from the wedlock on 13.10.2009. The husband and the wife belong to highly educated middle class families and the wife was made aware before the ...