Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard Shri B.M. Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Charpe, the learned Advocate for the respondent. The petitioner-employee has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the subordinate Courts concurrently upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from the service. 2. The petitioner had been in the employment of the respondent-Corporation as driver since 1984. According to the petitioner, his record of service was good and unblemished till theincident which resulted in dismissal of the petitioner occurred. The petitioner was given charge-sheet dated 29th June, 1993 alleging that on 9th May, 1993 when the petitioner was driving the State Transport bus on Mangrulpir-Nanded route, an accident occurred with matador in which three passengers travelling in the matador died and 13 passengers travelling in the matador sustained injuries. According to the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner failed to maintain safe distance between the State Transpor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. It is seen from the impugned order that an application for temporary injunction has been granted for two reasons. The first reason is that defendants No. 3 and 4, who are appellants herein, are refusing to perform specifically the agreement of sale entered into by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents. The second reason is that the appellants have sold part of the property, which conduct disclosed the intention of the appellants to meddle with the suit property during pendency of the suit that has been filed for permanent injunction and specific performance of the contract. 4. So far as the first reason is concerned, it relates to existence of prima facie case in favour of the respondents. However, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pemmada Prabhakar and others Vs. Youngmen's Vysya Associa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C. 1. The prayer for bail made by the applicant/accused charge-sheeted by Gokul Shirgaon M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Kolhapur for offence under Section 302 of the IPC is objected to by the learned APP on the ground that involvement of the applicant in the incident of scuffle with the deceased is borne out from the statements of three eye-witnesses. It is submitted that tangible material regarding involvement of the applicant being collected during the course of investigation, the prayer for bail may be negatived. The crime in question was registered from an inquiry of accidental death on 18-12-2012. Even perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses pointed out by the learned APP, i.e., of the truck driver Suryakant, rickshaw driver Dhale and one Shobha in front of whose house the incident has taken place do not reveal any material other than a scuffle having occurred in between the applicant and the deceased who were working as hamals on a truck. Significantly enough, the sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned single Judge granting a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for a declaration that an indenture of lease dated 19th April, 1989 executed by respondent No.3 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)/original defendant No.1 through its Chief Officer-respondent No.4/original defendant No.2 is valid, binding and subsisting and for a declaration that an indenture of lease dated 23rd May, 2003 executed by MHADA in favour of the appellant/original defendant No.3 is null and void and not binding upon respondent No.1 to the extent of allotment of an open plot of land admeasuring about 270 sq.mtrs. 2. The lease deed executed in favour of the respondent No.1 was in respect of CTS No.1268 (p). The lease deed executed in favour of the appellant is in respect of CTS No.464(p). Admittedly, the lease d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: 1. These three applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as the applicants in all these applications are the accused in one and the same case i.e. Special Case No.17 of 2013 arising out of C.R.No.I63 of 2011 registered at Shil Daighar Police Station, Thane. There are totally 23 accused who have been arrested in the said case. The applicants Abdul Salim Shaikh and Jamil Ahmed Jamahuddin Shaikh (in Bail Application No.850/14) were arrested on 6th April 2013. The applicant Hadisullah Raggibullah Chaudhary (in Bail Application No.179/14) was arrested on 11th April 2013, and the applicant Abdul Hakim Mohd.Naseer Chaudhari (in Bail Application No.236/14) was arrested on 15th April 2013. The applicants are in custody since the dates of their respective arrest. 2. The case relates to the collapse of a building that was being constructed illegally without permission from the Municipal Corporation of Thane, and with the connivance of the officers from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment : 1. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed by the applicants, who are accused in Summary Criminal Case No.109 of 2013 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohadi. Accused No.1 is a Company known as M/s TVS Motor Company Limited. The applicants are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. 2. The contention of the applicants is that they cannot be made vicariously liable for the alleged offence only because they are members of the Board of Directors of the Company. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel Shri Sunil Manohar that there are no allegations of any nature against either of the applicants and it is contended that the prosecution against them is nothing but sort of abuse of process. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Sunil Manohar has submitted that in fact the 'chain kit' on which mandatory declaration inclusive of all taxes is not mentioned has not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in this application for bail i.e. for suspension of the sentence awarded against him in Sessions Case No.93 of 2010 decided on 5th November, 2011. By the said judgment and order the present applicant/original accused No.3 along with other co-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC. He was respectively sentenced to suffer one year RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence under section 120-B of IPC, and was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer RI for one year for offence under section 489-B of IPC, and was sentenced to suffer RI for five years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer RI for six months for offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC. The appellant along with other co-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 489-A of IPC. The substantive sentences were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 11 November, 2009 passed by the Revisional Authority, namely the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance in the Department of Revenue. The order dated 11 November, 2009 and communication thereof dated 11 March, 2010 are challenged in the below mentioned factual background. 2. The Petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and termed as a Government Company under Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at the address mentioned in the title to this Writ Petition. The Respondents are officers exercising powers under the relevant statute namely the Central Excise Act, 1944 end Rules framed thereunder. In this case, we concerned with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The claim of the Petitioner is that it procured Aviation Turbine Fuel, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is continuing in employment as Shikshan Sewak. His caste claim as belonging to Chhaperband, Vimukta Jati (A), has been invalidated on 10.12.2013. This Court on 21.02.2014 has protected his employment. 3. Shri Choudhari, learned counsel has invited attention to the impugned order to urge that the validity given to a cousin has been discarded only by observing that the relationship with that person is not established. He contends that except for mentioning this conclusion, there are no reasons recorded as to why the relationship is not substantiated. Our attention is invited to the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell Authority on 20.06.2011 wherein the name of the said cousin or his father Atta Ulla Shah finds mention. The learned counsel submits that as the rela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 3rd March, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.82 Of 1998, convicting the Appellants [original accused Nos. 1 and 2] for the offences punishable U/Section 436 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three [3] years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- [Rs. Five Hundred Only] each and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six [6] months, the original accused have preferred present Criminal Appeal. 2. In short, the prosecution case is as under:- Complainant - Rambhau Piraji Shinde and present Appellants inter se resides in the neighbourhood in a public field reserved for grazing the cattle of the villagers [xk;jk.k]. Earlier there used to quarrel between the two families. In the circumstances, on 5th May, 1998 at about 12.30 a.m. to 1.00 a.m., the complainant noticed that roof of his house had caught fire and ...
Tag this Judgment!