Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... , the police authorities had lodged firs and private complaint bearing criminal case no.1055 of 2011 was also filed by the petitioner/defendant in the court of judicial magistrate first class, amravati, on 5.12.2011, for the offences punishable under sections 294, 384, 420 and 448 of the indian penal code read with with section 341 of the criminal procedure code by adopting false and fabricated version and making defamatory allegations .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (vasanti a. naik, j.) 1. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. the petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. whether a hindu woman who marries a hindu man during the subsistence of his marriage with his wife would be entitled to family pension under the maharashtra civil services (pension) rules, 1982 is the question that falls for consideration in this writ petition. few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus: 2. hinglas bharati was in the services of the respondent nos.2 to 4 while he expired on 19.9.1999. hinglas bharati was married to pushpa as per hindu rites and custom and during the subsistence of the marriage of hinglas bharati with pushpa and during the lifetime of pushpa, petitioner chanda claims to have entered into a wedlock with hinglas bharati on 3.4.1993. ku. sheetal was born from the wedlock between hinglas bharati and smt. pushpa whereas ku. diksha and chetan were born from the alleged wedlock between the petitioner chanda and hinglas bharati. sheetal, diksha and chetan have attained the age of majority. the petitioner approached the civil court after the death of hinglas bharati and sought succession certificate. the succession certificate was granted by the civil judge senior division, amravati in favour of the petitioner, ku. diksha, ku. sheetal and master chetan. smt. pushpa had expired before shri hinglas bharati was reported to be dead on 19.9.1999. on the basis of the succession .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.p. dharmadhikari, j.) 1. rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of parties. 2. the petitioner firm questions the communication dated 7.9.2015 issued to it by respondent no. 2 pointing out that it has not submitted the certificate of availability of credit from its banker towards the evidence of adequacy of working capital as per notice inviting tenders (nit). 3. this court issued notice in the matter on 21st september 2015 and at that time, passed the following order : heard shri a. a. naik, learned counsel for the petitioner. it appears that in the earlier tender process dated 16.03.2015 and thereafter dated 18.05.2015, the petitioner has been permitted to participate on the basis of documents i.e. certificate of chartered accountant showing his financial capacity. the banker's certificate which is being insisted upon now, was then not asked for. notice, returnable on 29.09.2015. 3. though the respondents may proceed further with consideration of other offers, it is open to them to simultaneously evaluate offer of the petitioner also without prejudice to their defence in the present petition. though tender process may continue, work order shall not be issued till next date. ? 4. we have heard mr akshay naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr s. p. dharmadhikari, senior advocate with mr c. s. samudra, learned counsel for respondents. 5. mr naik points out that in response to nit dated 13th june 2015 and as per terms and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.r. gavai, j.) 1. rule.rule made returnable forthwith. heard finally by consent. 2. the petitioner firm has approached this court, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent nos.2 to 4 in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. 3. the respondent nos. 2 to 4 had invited tenders for supplying and stacking of 1,50,000 cum machine crushed ballast between seoni (including) (conforming to specifications of machine crushed stone ballast issued by rdso, corrected up to date) in cess, in formation or in yards, in connection with gauge conversion between chhindwara-nainpur vide tender notice no. cec/bsp/2015-16/60. the tenders were to be submitted in two envelopes. the first envelope was pertaining to the technical and financial capacity of the bidder and the second envelope was with regard to the price bid. in response to the tender notice dated 2nd september 2015 as may as eight bidders had submitted their bids. the first envelopes were opened on 23rd december, 2015 in which the petitioner and one another bidder were found to be disqualified. being aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. heard shri anand jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; shri nitin lambat, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and shri sunil manohar, learned senior counsel for respondent no.5. 5. shri anand jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have grossly erred in rejecting the bid of the petitioner, on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
by this petition filed under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, 15 directors of agricultural produce market committee, amravati (respondent no. 4) question the order dated 27.12.2011 passed by respondent no. 2 district deputy registrar, cooperative societies, superseding it under section 45 of the maharashtra agricultural produce marketing (development and regulation) act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 1963 act) and appointing an administrator on it. the maharashtra agricultural produce marketing (development and regulation), rules, 1967 framed under this act are hereinafter referred to as 1967 rules. 2. this court has on 16.01.2012, restrained administrator from taking charge of a.p.m.c. and thus elected body viz., petitioners still continue to function. 3. the notice under section 45 of 1963 act for supersession is on various grounds which require scrutiny of material on record as the petitioners wish to contend that the charges are not proved against them. but then during arguments, parties agreed to passing of an order on preliminary objections raised by the petitioners first and thereafter if necessary, to proceed with further hearing of the petition on merits of those charges ie alleged perversity. accordingly, this judgment is being delivered only in the light of arguments advanced on the preliminary contentions about absence of effective previous consultation with state agricultural marketing board ie respondent 10 and correctness of procedure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. heard.2. by means of this appeal, the appellantowner of the offending motor vehicle bearing registration no: mh 31 h:8203 challenges the interim award which was passed under section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1966 ( in short "the said act") on the ground that the learned member of the motor accident claims tribunal, nagpur ( in short "the tribunal") wrongly exonerated the insurer company from joint liability to pay compensation in the sum of rs. 50,000/ on the basis of "no fault liability". mr s.s.deshpande, learned advocate for the appellant invited my attention to copy of the insurance policy and pointed out that alleged offending motor vehicle mh31 h : 8203 was insured with reliance general insurance company limited, for the validity period covering the date of accident. according to him, the period of insurance was from 12.6.2007 to 17.6.2008 and the accident had occurred on 13.6.2007 at 1630 hours. that being so, prima facie, insurer and owner of the vehicle were jointly and severally responsible to pay the interim compensation in the sum of rs. 50,000/ awarded by the learned member of the tribunal, nagpur. the question as to whether the insured had played fraud as alleged, with insurer will have to have to be gone into at the time of recording of the evidence in the main petition, under section 166 of the said act. at the stage of proceedings u/s 140 of the act, the liability of the owner and insurer as mentioned in chapter x of the act, is an absolute liability .....
Tag this Judgment!