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. 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. 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
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. All these matters are taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In these letters patent appeals and writ petitions, learned Counsel for both parties made their submissions on the questions, which we have framed in this judgment. 3. Advocate Shri Khapre appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.368/2011 made the following submissions : (i) The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was enacted to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable Trusts in the State of Bombay. Various officers who are required to implement the provisions of the said B.P.T. Act, 1950, namely the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner and Charity Commissioner are performing judicial functions or in respect of some provisions; the quasi-judicial functions. That is evident from the reading of several pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, therefore, they were heard together and can be disposed of by common judgment. 2 These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3440/2011. That Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in LPA No.278/2012, who are original Petitioners and they impugned the order passed by the Respondent No.1 State Government dated 30.10.2010 in Revision Application by which the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders dated 20.02.2010 and 22.06.2010 of the Collector, Nagpur and the Commissioner, State Excise respectively. The Revision Application before the Minister was filed by the Appellant before us in LPA No.278/2012 as its application seeking FLIII licence was rejected. 3 The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are that the Appellant in LPA No.278/2012 made an application for gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, therefore, they were heard together and can be disposed of by common judgment. 2 These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3440/2011. That Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in LPA No.278/2012, who are original Petitioners and they impugned the order passed by the Respondent No.1 State Government dated 30.10.2010 in Revision Application by which the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders dated 20.02.2010 and 22.06.2010 of the Collector, Nagpur and the Commissioner, State Excise respectively. The Revision Application before the Minister was filed by the Appellant before us in LPA No.278/2012 as its application seeking FLIII licence was rejected. 3 The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are that the Appellant in LPA No.278/2012 made an application for gran...
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!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 ...
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!