Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... a passing reference is occurring in penultimate para of narration that even during pendency of the show-cause- notice, two offences were registered.the last para of order consists of disclosure of application of mind and the reasons. ..... from what this court has considered, it is clear that though four offences were imputed in the show-cause- notice, three do squarely fall within the prescription of section 56 of the bombay police act. ..... [b] the material not included in the show- cause-notice, namely two offences which were registered against the petitioner on 27th april, 2010 and 31st august, 2010, was taken into consideration while passing the externment order. ..... , the subsequently registered offences are referred to or relied upon.10. ..... 64/06 is not amongst the offences from chapters-xii, xvi and xviii of indian penal code. ..... [c] one amongst two offences registered during pendency of externment case is under section 160 of indian penal code and hence not within the compass of chapters-xii, xvi and xviii of indian penal code. ..... the grounds of challenge, as urged before this court, can be summarized as follows:-[a] out of four offences referred to, crime no. ..... he admits the registration of offences. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. in both these petitions, filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, challenge is to the provisions of rule 86e of the maharashtra cooperative societies rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 rules" for short), with prayer to declare it as ultra vires to article 14 of the constitution of india. petitioners in both the matters are creditors, and the cooperative society from whom they have borrowed loan, have instituted proceedings under section 101 of the maharashtra cooperative societies act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1960 act" for short). one of their objection is, about availability of alternative remedy under section 154 of the 1960 act. petitioners have urged that as constitutional validity of rule 86e has been assailed, that remedy is not equally efficacious. the creditors assert that challenge is frivolous and only to avoid deposit of 50% of the amount claimed as mandated under section 154(2). accordingly we have proceeded further to consider the challenge. 2. in writ petition no. 92/2009, a certificate for recovery under section 101 of the 1960 act, has been issued on 11/13.08.2008, and thereafter a notice of seizure of immovable property dated 22.10.2008 and 05.01.2009 has also been issued. in this background, the petitioners - debtors who claim that there was one time settlement, have assailed the said order dated 11.08.2008 contending that opportunity of cross-examination needed to be granted to bring truth on record, and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. in both these petitions, filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, challenge is to the provisions of rule 86e of the maharashtra cooperative societies rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 rules" for short), with prayer to declare it as ultra vires to article 14 of the constitution of india. petitioners in both the matters are creditors, and the cooperative society from whom they have borrowed loan, have instituted proceedings under section 101 of the maharashtra cooperative societies act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1960 act" for short). one of their objection is, about availability of alternative remedy under section 154 of the 1960 act. petitioners have urged that as constitutional validity of rule 86e has been assailed, that remedy is not equally efficacious. the creditors assert that challenge is frivolous and only to avoid deposit of 50% of the amount claimed as mandated under section 154(2). accordingly we have proceeded further to consider the challenge. 2. in writ petition no. 92/2009, a certificate for recovery under section 101 of the 1960 act, has been issued on 11/13.08.2008, and thereafter a notice of seizure of immovable property dated 22.10.2008 and 05.01.2009 has also been issued. in this background, the petitioners - debtors who claim that there was one time settlement, have assailed the said order dated 11.08.2008 contending that opportunity of cross-examination needed to be granted to bring truth on record, and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
b.p. dharmadhikari, j. in this letters patent appeal challenge is to order passed by the learned single judge on 30.07.2011 in writ petition no. 5993/2011, holding that the petitioner, who presented the petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india lacked locus to maintain it. 2. in writ petition no. 5993/2010 the challenge before the learned single judge was to the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the hon'ble minister (food, civil supplies and consumer protection), reviewing his earlier order dated 05.09.1997 and thereby granting renewal of semi wholesale kerosene license to respondent no.5, after he paid the necessary amount and penalty. the petitioner in that petition, who is appellant before us is, admittedly carrying on the business as semi wholesale kerosene dealer in same area and according to him, this renewal granted to respondent no.5 after several years adversely affects the quota of kerosene being made available to him and his business. the appellant, therefore, contends that he is a person aggrieved. 3. it is not in dispute that earlier he had filed writ petition no. 184/2009 on 01.07.2009 and it was disposed of by recording a finding that he was not a person aggrieved. it was assailed in letters patent appeal no.337/2009 and during hearing of that appeal, the state government made a statement that it would extend an opportunity of hearing after withdrawing the order dated 20.09.2008, which was assailed in writ petition no. 184/2009. because .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... he submitted that the learned trial judge ought to have raised statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant and ought to have punished the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. 5. ..... the complainant despite reply chose to file complaint against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. ..... this appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned judicial magistrate, first class, court no.2, akola, dt.17.11.2008 in summary criminal case no.87 of 2005 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. 2. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the prevention of corruption act. ..... 1 of 2002 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of offences punishable under sections 7,13(1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. 2. ..... learned special judge consequently acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was charged. 8. ..... thereafter the then dy superintendent of police drafted his report recording the above facts and sent the same to ram nagar police station, chandrapur upon which offence vide crime no. ..... on consideration of facts and circumstances in their entirety in the present case, there is no basis for to arrive at a conclusion that all the ingredients of an offence viz. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... the appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned sessions judge, wardha in sessions trial no.157/2008 thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. 2. ..... after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code for committing murder of his wife harsha and daughter meena. ..... the charge was framed for the offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... gavai, j) by this appeal, the appellants are assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 498a of the indian penal code and sentencing them to suffer r.i. ..... for two years for the offence punishable under section 498-a of the indian penal code. 2. ..... for life for the offence punishable under section 302 and r.i. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
a.b. chaudhari, j. 01. rule. rule heard forthwith. 02. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india at the instance of a woman member of zilla parishad, washim, depicts the blatant violation of the constitutional provisions despite insertion of seventy-third amendment to the constitution conferring necessary status, namely constitutional status, on the panchayat raj institutions in the extant political system, though more than two decades have passed. eventually, this court and rather this bench had an occasion to deal with a similar situation and a decision was rendered by both of us with concurring judgments written separately in the case of charan sovinda waghmare vs. state of mah. and others [2012 (4) bom. c.r. 40]. we find no material difference in the facts of the present case, so also the violations of constitutional provisions as to panchayati raj on the part of the respondents. 03. it is the case of the petitioner that for beautification and development of garden near rest house at adan project, karanja, a provision of rs.50,00,000/- was made for 2009-10, and administrative sanction for various sub-works in total was granted to the extent of rs. 34.97 lakhs under the account head 3452276-basic amenities for development of tourist places. it is not in dispute that the said allotment of funds was made over to the zilla parishad, washim, and further to panchayat samitee, karanja, in turn and as such the same was required to be spent by the panchayat .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.p. dharmadhikari, j.) admit. heard finally by consent of the parties. shri n.s. khubalkar, learned assistant government pleader waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and shri s.r. bhongade, the learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. by this appeal filed under clause 15 of the letters patent, the appellant-agricultural produce market committee, nagpur has questioned the judgment dated 07th september, 2011 passed by the learned single judge of this court in writ petition no. 5121 of 2006. the learned single judge has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant and upheld the order of the industrial court dated 17.12.2005 in complaint (ulpn) no. 574 of 2002. the industrial court has found that the appellant-market committee has to pay subsistence allowance in accordance with the provisions of clause 25 (5a) of model standing orders framed under the industrial employment (standing orders) act, 1946 to its employee-respondent no.2. the model standing orders and the industrial employment (standing orders) act, 1946 are found applicable to the establishment of the appellant by construing definition of industrial and other establishments as contained in payment of wages act, 1936 particularly section 2(ii). it is not in dispute that the provisions of industrial employment (standing orders) act, 1946 apply to industrial establishment as defined in section 2(e)(i) thereto and that definition, in turn, adopts the definition of .....
Tag this Judgment!