Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Notification (Revised Guidelines for Making Selection of Applicants for Grant of Off-shore Exploration Licence) issued on 29th December 2010. Considering the nature of controversy we have heard the Writ Petition finally with the consent of parties. Hence Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. 2. Shri N. H. Seervai, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A. A. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K. Setalvad, learned Additional Solicitor General with Shri S. K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents 1 and 2, Shri N. C. Phadnis learned counsel for respondent no.3, Shri A. S. Mardikar learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Shri Anand Parchure for the respondent No.5 have been heard at length. 3. The facts relevant for considering the aforesaid challenge are that, according to petitioner-Company it carries on the business of prospecting...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants-employees have questioned the judgment dated 15.10.1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2618/1997 since reported at 1998(3) Mah.L.J. 897 (Executive Engineer vs. Ananta and Others). They were the respondents in the said petition. The learned Single Judge has, in said judgment, found that services of present appellants are not covered under the terms of Kalelkar Award and hence their termination cannot be faulted. However, they are found to be entitled to compensation as per and under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, as retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court earlier had on 4.6.1994 in ULP (Complaint) Nos. 319/1984 to 322/1984 directed the respondent/employer to reinstate these appellants to their formal posts with continuity of service and full back wages. The Industrial Court has dismissed U.L.P. Revision No. 158/1994 filed by the respondent/employer a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the first appellate Court on 09/07/2012 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous civil appeal. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for preemption. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from developing the suit property. The trial Court by the order dated 14/10/2011, rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioner filed a miscellaneous civil appeal on 12/01/2012 against the order dated 14/10/2011 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was the case of the petitioner in the application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Amravati on 23.6.2008 in Sessions Trial No.15 of 2008 whereby the learned trial Judge found appellant/accused Ratan Babhootsingh Rathod guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant/accused was also found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The facts, which are stated briefly, are as under: That, on or about 18.10.2007, a report was lodged at Police Station, Kurha, District Amravati by Ramchandra Dashrath ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11th October 2011 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-2, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2004. The appeal was dismissed. The appeal arose out of judgment and order dated 21st June 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wardha in Regular Civil Suit No. 261 of 2000 whereby suit was dismissed. 2. Facts in brief are that appellant and respondent are real brothers. They inherited suit land bearing survey nos. 56 and 57, total area 5.83 HR situated at village Hiwara, Tahsil Sevagram, District Wardha. This ancestral agricultural land was triangular in shape. Both the brothers had entered into a registered Partition Deed (exhibit 51) whereby the aforesaid agricultural land was agreed to be partitioned pursuant to the terms contained therein. The land was divided by drawing east-west boundary. Plaintiff Vishwanath was given half portion (2.92 HR) on southern side. The northern portion admeasuring 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court which has been maintained by the appellate Court. The respondent no.1 is the owner of a shop in which the respondent no.2 - defendant no.1 and the petitioner no.1 - defendant no.2 were the tenants. The rent agreed to be paid was Rs.2500/- per month. For the sake of convenience, the respondent no.1 would be referred to as the landlady, the petitioner no.1 would be referred to as the tenant and the petitioner no.2 would be referred to as the subtenant. 3. According to the landlady, the tenants were in arrears of rent since August 2006. As these arrears of rent were not paid despite demand being made, on 21-11-2009 the landlady issued a notice under provisions of Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the said Act) to the ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1) The present Criminal Appeal takes exception to judgment and order dated 31.3.2009, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No.113 of 2008, thereby convicting the appellant 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.2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months; and for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2) The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is as under: The appellant Sambhaji s/o Chindhuji Pachare had given information to the Police Station, Ghuggus, that on 5.6.2006 at about 4.00 am, his wife Shalu was seen burning in the house near the cot and in the said incident in which his wife died. On the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 01/09/1998 passed in Sessions Case No.4 of 1994 by Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 304(II) and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under: Deceased Mahadeo Agalate, who was about 55 years of age at the time of his death, was the father of the present appellant. He had three sons Ramdas, Bhikathe present appellant and Tejrao, besides a daughter, Kasturabai. His elder son Ramdas, being married, was staying separately from him while Mahadeo used to reside at village Pahurpurna along with his wife Mamtabai and two sons, Tejrao and the present appellant. The brothers of deceased Mahadeo namely Narayan, Sahdeo and Ambadas used to reside at village Pahurpurna, but separately. His daughter Kasturabai, being married, was residing along with her husband at village Nimkarda. On 08/11/1993, deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Indira K. Jain, J. 1. By this petition, petitioners seek issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) quashing and setting aside government resolution dated 17.5.2003 (ii) directing respondent no.1 to implement and continue the effect of government resolution dated 3rd August, 2001 and (iii) granting revise pay scale as per the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. 2. It is pertinent to give a vivid background of the case before we advert to decide the issue at hand “ Petitioners are working as drivers on the establishment of respondent nos. 2 to 4 Zilla Parishads. The post of driver falls under Class-III category and it is an isolated post as opportunity of promotion is not available in case of the employees working as drivers. The State of Maharashtra has come up from time to time with different schemes and programmes in respect of the working conditions and pay scales of its employees. Vide Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995 State government implemented a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) takes exception to the judgment dated 16.09.1994 passed by the first appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 2. Facts found relevant for deciding the second appeal are that according to the appellant there was a Dargah and graveyard admeasuring about 350 ft. X 250 ft. in Survey No. 153 at Rajura Tahsil, District Chandrapur. The said Dargah and graveyard was shown as Wakf property in the development plan of Rajura town in 1972. In the Government Gazette dated 06.03.1975 it was shown at Sr. No. 49. According to the appellant the defendant no.1-Deepak Deshpande had encroached an area admeasuring 160 ft. X 170 ft. of said property in the month of May 1974. The defendant no.1 had also sold the portion admeasuring 95 ft. X 80 ft. to the defendant no.2 on 29.06.1976. In this background the appe...
Tag this Judgment!