Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. The tenant has questioned order dated 02.05.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 434/2011 and the judgment dated 28.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.132/2011, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Writ Petition was filed by the appellant / tenant challenging concurrent judgments and decrees of his eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1999 Act" for short) and the Appellate Court confirming it. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of tenant that both the Courts below have not considered whether partial eviction of tenant from premises would meet the needs of respondent / landlord. This requirement of Section 16[2] of the 1999 Act, is found to be not satisfied, hence the matter came to be remanded to the Appellate Court for recording additional evidence, if any, and to decide it after giving parties due opportunity. 2. This judgment dated 28.02.2011 was then questioned in Misc. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Criminal 2. By the present petition, reliefs which the petitioners are seeking are quoted below: (i)" direct the respondent Municipal Council to initiate an enquiry for the reasons of leakage of water due to which the citizens of Hinganghat were affected, and; (ii) direct the Municipal Council to initiate prosecution against the erring officers of Municipal Council for their negligence/failure to supply pure drinking water to the citizens of Hinganghat, and; (iii)direct the State as well as by Municipal Council, Hinganghat and the erring officer of the respondent Municipal Council to pay appropriate compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners for the loss of their son, and; (iv) direct the respondent State or the Municipal Council to give employment to one of the son of the petitioners so as to save the family from starving." [Quoted from pages no.18 & 19 of petition paper book] BACKGROUND 3. The petitioners' claim is based...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Rule in all the Petitions, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petitions take exception to the Judgment and Orders of the College Tribunal by which the Tribunal has set aside the termination orders passed against the Respondents-Lecturers in Writ Petition Nos.1301/11, 1314/11 and 1315/11 on the ground that the enquiry held against the Respondents-Lecturers in the said Petitions has been vitiated. The Tribunal in the course of adjudication of the said proceedings has also held that prior permission of the University is not required to be taken for the termination of the Respondents, as the Respondents are not confirmed employees. The aforesaid three Petitions have been filed by the Management challenging the orders of the Tribunal in so far as it sets aside the termination orders passed against each of the Respondents on the ground that the departmental enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This election petition is filed challenging the election of the respondent No.1 on the grounds under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the said Act?) for improper acceptance of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer. The substance of the averments made in the election petition is that the respondent No.1 has failed to disclose in his affidavit in Form No.26 submitted along-with his nomination paper delivered under Section 33(1) of the said Act, the information, as required under Section 33-A(1)(i) and (2) of the said Act, in respect of certain offences in which he is accused in a case pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The nomination of the respondent No.1 was required to be rejected under Section 36(2)(b) of the said Act and the result of the election of the respondent No.1 has materially affected by such improper acceptance of his nomination, as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J. ) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1719/1992 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 herein, the appellants have approached this Court. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- The suit field i.e. agricultural field Survey No.26 area 30.34 acres is owned by the writ petitioners no.1 to 4 and their father Balkisanji. One Sitaram Gole was tenant of the said field. After coming into effect of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act), the writ petitioners/landlords filed an application for resumption of land for personal cultivation, being Revenue Case No. 49/59(10-F)/61-62 in view of the provisions of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act on 24.03.1961. During the pendency of those proceedings, the tenants executed a document thereby surrendering half of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India, Chairman, CBDT and Commissioner of Income Tax assail the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur in Original Application No. 2075 of 2003 on 26th September, 2003. By the said order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the challenge raised by respondent No.1-employee and has quashed the charge memo dated 07.11.2000 on the ground that the same suffered from inexplicable delay and some of the charges therein were in relation to discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the said respondent. This Court had on 26th April, 2004 admitted the matter and stayed said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court also permitted the Departmental Enquiry to proceed further till the Enquiry Officer furnished his report. If the employee was found to be guilty, the petitioner-employer was asked to seek permissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
P.R. Bora, J.1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Parties have placed on record all relevant documents which are not in dispute. Hence it would not be necessary to call for record and proceedings. Hence record and proceedings dispensed with.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 07/01/2014 in Special Civil Suit No.694/2012 whereby he has dismissed the said civil suit for want of jurisdiction, the plaintiff therein has preferred the present appeal.3. The appellant is a registered Company dealing in the business of coal. It also imports coal. During off shore acquisition of coal it requires to engage the services of the companies like the present respondent who make available the vessels for transportation of the coal. Sometimes in the month of September, 2011 the appellant and the respondent started negotiations through a broker by name M/s Saigal Sea Trade. Considerable correspondence t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Per Court: All these criminal appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 18/10/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.554/2002. For the sake of convenience, accused numbers are referred according to their serial numbers as mentioned in charge (Exh.20). By the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, accused no.1 Vijay Kisanrao Mate, accused no.4 Umesh Sampatrao Dahake, accused no.9 Kiran Umraoji Kaithe, accused no.10 Kamlesh Sitaram Nimbarte, accused no.13 Dinesh s/o Devidas Gaiki and accused no.15 Raju Vitthalrao Bhadre came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302, 120-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 These Writ Petitions were to be heard finally at the admission stage and therefore, with consent of parties, we proceed to issue Rule on each of these petitions. With their further consent, we dispose them of finally by this common judgment. 2 These Writ Petitions under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India question the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Chancellor of Dr.Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth (for short “PDKV”), pursuant to which the appointment of each of the Petitioners either as Senior Research Assistant (for short “SRA”) or Junior Research Assistant (for short “JRA”) stands cancelled. 3 Mr.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners requested us to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 238/2012. Accordingly, it would be advantageous to refer to these facts to appreciate the challenge raised. 4 It is common ground that the PDKV is an Agricultural University and therefore, g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In these Letters Patent Appeals, a common judgment and order dated 12th September, 2011, passed in Writ Petition Nos.1301/2011 (Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Anil Devaji Gaikwad and others), 1978 of 2011 (Diwakar Maloji Kamble vs. Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others), 1979 of 2011 (Anil Dewaji Gaikwad vs. Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others), 1315 of 2011 (Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Rajkumar Kisanrao Bhagat and others) and 1314 of 2011 ((Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Diwakar Maloji Kamble and others), by which the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the prior permission of the Nagpur University was required before terminating the services of the original appellants Anil Gaikwad, Diwakar Kamble and Rajkumar Bhagat who had filed appeals before the Un...
Tag this Judgment!