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.
M/s. Bombaywala and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
R.K. Deshpande, J. Rule. Taken up for final disposal. 1. One late Shri Puranchandra Buty was the owner of Khasra Nos.320 and 315 (Part) of Mouza Sitabuldi, Nagpur. This property was partitioned amongst his legal heirs and their shares are devolved upon the descendants, who are the respondent Nos.6 to 11 ( the owners ) in this petition. This petition pertains to the implementation of Abhyankar Road Widening and Buty Mahal Street Scheme ( the Scheme , for short) prepared by the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur ( NIT ) for systematic development of 8.7 acres of land of Khasra Nos.320 and 315 (Part), Mouza Sitabuldi, belonging to Buty family, consisting of Sitabuldi Retail Market on the sides of Mahatma Gandhi Road and Abhyankar Road, located in 'V' shape, from the junction of Variety Square, in the heart of the city of Nagpur. 2. The purpose of the said Scheme is to create and improve the existing means of communications and facilities for the traffic by removing congestion and to develop...
Vibha Vs. Arun
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
Kum. Indira Jain, J. 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties as record and proceedings are received. 3. By this appeal appellant/wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Amravati dated 30-12-2015 dismissing the petition filed by appellant/wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. Facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated in brief as under :- Appellant is wife of respondent (hereinafter appellant shall be referred as 'wife' and respondent shall be referred as 'husband'). They got married on 11-03-2000 as per customary rites. After marriage wife went to Wardha to cohabit with the husband. The family of husband was consisting of his father, mother, brother, sisters and two kids of married sister. It is the case of wife that soon after marriage she realized that approach of family members towards her was not good. They used to taunt, disrespect and harass her...
Citizen Forum For Equality Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Ch ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this Public Interest Litigation basically modification in user of a plot in Development Plan, its allotment to Respondent No. 9, illegal building construction upon it and failure of land owner Nagpur Improvement Trust (N.I.T.) or Planning Authority Nagpur Municipal Corporation to exercise rights or to discharge obligations, are the challenges which arise for consideration. The development plan was finalized under S. 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter MRTP Act) and NIT constituted under the Nagpur Improvement Trust,1936 (NIT Act hereafter) was the planning authority in respect of said plot till 27.02.2002. Thereafter, it is the NMC functioning under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The Development Control Rules of 1983 and 2000 (hereinafter DCR) also need to be looked into. 2. Subject matter is a plot having House No. 1155 CTS No. 1143 at Ward No. 74, ad measuring little over 1.14 Acre. The said plot is for commerc...
Pradeep Manikrao Chikte Vs. Deputy Director Vocational Education and T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard Shri S. S. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no. 1. 2. Though respondent no. 2 is duly served, none appears for the respondent no. 2. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court, Buldana dated 3-3-2006 in Complaint (ULP) No. 546/2004 and judgment and order dated 2-2-2015 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Akola in Revision ULP No. 39/2006. 5. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follows. The petitioner in response to an advertisement calling applications for the post of Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute at Mehkar submitted his application as he was duly qualified. The petitioner was selected and appointed temporarily on 4-1-1998. An appointment order was issued on 2-6-2000 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the fixed scale o...
Gajanan Vs. Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangdiya and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This election petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the said Act) challenging the election of the respondent No.1 as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 074 Chimur constituency. 2. The election of the respondent no.1 has been challenged principally on the ground that the respondent no.1 is a Government Contractor undertaking civil contracts and on the date of filing his nomination paper these contracts with the Government were subsisting. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1, therefore, stands disqualified by virtue of provisions of Section 9A of the said Act. The other ground of challenge is that the respondent no.1 while submitting his nomination form had filled in the same as per his name appearing in the electoral roll. However, when the results of the election were declared, the name of the returned candidate was shown differently. This according to the petitioner res...
Vyankatesh Trading Company Vs. Food Corporation of India, through Gene ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Civil Application No. 1964 of 2016 for intervention is allowed. The applicant is permitted to intervene. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have published a tender notice for appointment of Regular Handling and Transport Contractor at FCI, FSD Wardha for the period of two years. In response to the said tender notice, the petitioner submitted his tender online. The tender was to be in two parts. Part one contains the technical bid regarding the financial and experience qualification of the tenderer and the second part contains the price bid. The petitioner was communicated on 3.8.2016 that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. The reason given for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was that the petitioner had ...
Deepak Khubchand Bajaj Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Anti- ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
1. The applicant, who is a secretary of the Sindhu Education Society, Jaripatka, Nagpur, a registered minority educational institution having under its wing in all 12 educational institutions, was arrested on 12.11.2015 on the allegation that he amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period of about 25 years i.e. between the year 1990 and 2015 and, in doing so, he with the help of his wife (accused No.2) resorted to various contraptions, like threatening his employees with termination of their services, if they failed to pay the monies demanded by him or failed to obey his orders, indulging in deceptions and cheating as well as preparing of false documents and using them as genuine and also misappropriating the money of the institution. 2. During the pendency of the investigation, the applicant moved a bail application before the Special Court (ACB) Nagpur, but it was rejected by it. The applicant also moved this Court under Section 439 of ...
Mangesh Balkrushnaji Deshmukh Vs. Vinayak Shikshan Sanstha and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 delivered by the School Tribunal, Amravati, dismissing the Appeal No. 89 of 1999 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, challenging his termination from service by an order dated 13.08.1999. The tribunal has held that the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in terms of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, his appointment was purely on temporary basis against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe candidate made for the reason of non-availability of such candidate and hence, his initial appointment cannot be treated as on probation so as to confer upon him deemed confirmation in service. 2. Shri Gode, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was the specific stand of the management that the appointment of the petitioner a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›