Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-10-2016
Cav Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. On 30 March 2012, while dealing with Writ Petition No.126 of 2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court was confronted with two judgments, both rendered by Division Benches of this Court, on the point involved, namely whether a retired teacher can be a member of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into the misconduct of Respondent no.1 appointed as Assistant Teacher in Petitioner no.2 school? 2. The management was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of the School Tribunal: firstly, that the constitution of the inquiry committee was defective; And secondly, that the inquiry and the punishment imposed on this teacher were both bad in law. The School Tribunal therefore directed the management to reinstate the School Teacher with full back wages but reserving liberty to the management to conduct a fresh inquiry against him. 3. One Division Bench sitting at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.5867 of 2008 (Leelatai d/o. Annapa Patil Vs. The State o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-12-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellants, who stand convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2008 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month, by this Appeal challenge their conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- Appellant No.2 is the son of Appellant No.1. Deceased Lalasaheb was the brother of Appellant No.1. They had two other brothers by name Dattatraya and PW-4 Kundalik. Deceased Lalasaheb was given in adoption to one Yeshoda Kadam and his name was entered into the property of Yeshoda's husband Ramchandra Kadam. Appellant No.1 wanted to sell the ancestral property the agricultural land. His brothers Datt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Feb-08-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to decide their representations and to take a policy decision of relaxation of any of the conditions which would come in the way of granting any right, title or interest in respect of forest lands occupied by them. 3. The petitioners have further approached for a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant right and title and 'patta' in respect of forest lands occupied by the petitioners and others on the line of the 'patta' granted to the agriculturists in the adjacent districts of Bhandra and Gadchiroli as per the provisions under Sections 4(3), 4(5) and 4(6) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 4. It is the contention of the petitioners tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 30th March 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.700 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months; and an imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year, respectively, by this Appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- On 29th August 2002, PW-1 PSI Jayendra Sawant was on night duty at Pant Nagar Police Station, Ghatkopar. At about 12:55 am, he received secret information that the thieves, who had stolen away vehicle, are in Sai Leela Hotel at Ghatkopar. He, therefore, gave message to PW-4 Head Constable Rajendra Ghadge, who was on night patrolling duty, to come to Sai Leela Hotel. He also rushed to the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-15-2016
A.S. Oka, J. THE FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The petitioner which is a public charitable trust has filed the present PIL for challenging the decision of the Pune Municipal Corporation to construct a road through hills which have been successfully afforested by the Social Forestation Department of the State Government. A resolution was passed by the General Body of the second respondent-Pune Municipal Corporation being Resolution No.532 (for short the impugned resolution?) on 27th February 1996 for construction of a 60 feet wide road (for short the proposed road?)through the hills/hills slope from Paud Phata Road upto the gate of Balbharti building complex. It is pointed out in the petition that in the draft revised Development Plan for the city of Pune which was published in the year 1982, the proposed road was shown. However, while sanctioning the draft Development Plan, in exercise of the power under section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (for short `the MRTP Act'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-07-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No.4/2009 by which the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur convicted the appellant, he is before this Court in this appeal. 2. By the impugned order of conviction, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. 3. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are stated hereunder:- Mohan Makde (PW4) is the Sarpancha of village Welgaon. On 13.08.2008, when he was available at his house, some boys from the village had come to him at 12.30 noon. They inform...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-06-2016
1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of the record of C.A. No.U-3733/ E-122 R.No.122 dated 4-4-2016, which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader. Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to withdraw the revision application. This could have been permitted by this Court if it had been a simple revision application without making any serious allegations assailing the record of this Court and without mud-slinging the sitting Judges and the officers of this Court. The revision application along with the documents and pursis on record contain all sorts of wild allegations amounting to scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the record of this Court. Such allegations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-06-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the Original Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 31st July 2012, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5606 of 2012. By the impugned Judgment and Order, learned Single Judge has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 21st June 2012 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal bearing No.Appeal/Desk/VP/28/2012, thereby confirming the Judgment and Order dated 16th January 2012 passed by the District Collector, Raigad in Dispute Application No.41 of 2010. By these orders, the election of the Appellant as a Member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Usurli-Khurd is held as invalid on the count that he has incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (Act No.III of 1959), (for short the Act), since he is having more than two children. 2. The facts, which are relevant and material, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-06-2016
P.C.: 1. The applications are moved for pre arrest bail as the applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments Act) in C.R. No. 316 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara police station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of one Gurupreetsingh Anand on 16th August, 2013. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2000 one Vijay Ishwaran and Joseph, the founders of QI Group formed a company under the name and style Gold Quest International Private Limited . The applicants/accused also joined the said group in 2006. Gold Quest International Private Limited used to sale gold plated coins. In the year 2000 the rate of gold was Rs. 5,000/- per 10 gms., however, they used to sale the gold plated coins for Rs. 30,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : May-06-2016
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. A vital issue emerges in this petition:- "Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ( MEPS Rules for short), issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?" 5. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I had invited the learned Advocates practicing in service law to render their assistance in this matter. I have thus heard the learned Advocates for the litigating sides, as well as, those learned Advocates. 6. The petitioner / management has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015, delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No. 5 of 2013, filed by the appellant / employee Respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed an...
Tag this Judgment!