Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.176/2011 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/tenant herein. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:- The appellant/landlord filed a suit being R.C.S. No.473/2002 against the respondent/tenant in the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur for possession of the suit premises under Section 16(1) (a), (b), (c) and (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant. The learned trial Judge vide judgment and order dated 27th November, 2006 decreed the suit. It is not in dispute that the said decree has been affirmed up to the Apex Court. After the decree was passed, the execution proceedings vide Special Darkhast No.2/2007 came to be filed by the appellant before the Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur. In the said proceedings, on 20th January, 2010 an application vide Exh.52 came t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be a Social worker, has approached this Court seeking a direction to quash and set aside the tender notice published in the daily Nav Bharat dated 21.04.2008 and the whole process undertaken by the respondents in pursuance of the aforesaid tender notice. The petitioner further seeks a direction to constitute a High Power Committee consisting of experts in the field, so as to properly estimate the cost of the Project namely Four laning of Warora-Chandrapur-Ballarpur-Bamani road and bridges on SH 264, Part Warora to Chandrapur km 40/100 to 83/409, Part Chandrapur to Bamani km 94/00 to 107/800 including Chandrapur bypass road (SH 266) km 0/00 to 5/200 and 2 km length of SH 267 in Chandrapur district, total length 64.40 kms and direct the aforesaid High Power Committee to monitor and supervise the work of the aforesaid pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered on 26.7.2011 in Misc. Civil Application No.291 of 2011 in First Appeal that was sought to be filed against the judgment, order and decree passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 10.6.2009 in Special Civil Suit No.848 of 2003. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law. The substantial question of law involved in the appeal is as under:- Whether the finding recorded by the first appellate Court in deciding the application for condonation of delay to prefer first appeal that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay is not based upon the facts before it and is thus perverse ? 2. Shri S.W. Sambre, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the first appellate Court, in rejecting the application filed for condoning the delay that had occ...
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. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, dated 18.03.2008, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002? for the sake of brevity). The petitioner also challenges the judgment of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 16.09.2013, confirming the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Few facts giving rise to the present petition are stated thus: The petitioner was the joint owner of the immovable property along with Jaiprakash Pahelwan and Nirmala Pahelwan. In the year 2000, Jaiprakash Pahelw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the revisional order dated 13.02.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Amravati by which he confirmed the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amravati ordering de novo trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the evidence, that was recorded before the trial Judge so also the judgment that, in fact, the trial that was held was a summons trial and not a summary trial. He submitted that complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in the Court on 24.06.2009. Thereafter, the evidence commenced in July-2010 and the cross-examination was conducted by counsel for the respondent on 13.08.2010 and 15.10.2010. Another witness was examined as CW2-Satyana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner Dr. Anil Dhage, a Dentist, has put to challenge judgment and order dated 24.12.2001 in Original Application No.558/2000, inter alia, by which the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) held that the ad hoc employee-petitioner was replaced by a bonded candidate namely; respondent no.5-Dr.Sandip Gujar on 09.04.2001 and, therefore, the Original Application did not survive and was disposed of. FACTS: 2. The petitioner, being a qualified Dental Surgeon, was appointed by Dean, Medical College, Nagpur on 12.06.1998, pursuant to his selection on 19.08.1997 as Dental Surgeon in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-. But before that he had worked and the total period of his service till 29.08.2000 is as shown below, which is supported by the appointment orders produced by the petitioner from Annexures E to E11. Date of appointmentPeriodWorking days15/10/199615/10/1996 to 12/11/962927/11/199615/11/1996 to 14/12/1996296/1/199716/12/19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioners/original defendants have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application (Exh.16) filed by the petitioners praying that the parties be referred to arbitration. 4. The respondent has filed civil suit against the petitioners praying for the decree for Rs.36,24,598/- along with interest. According to the respondent/ plaintiff, the petitioners / defendants are liable to pay the amount of Rs.28,53,743/- towards the balance payment for the supply of goods made in February, 2014. The respondent/ plaintiff contends that as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the bills, the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest @ 24% per annum if the payment is not received within 30 days and therefore, the amount which is sought to be recovered from the petitioners, includes interest of Rs.2,60,825/-. In addition, the respondent/plaintiff h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Petitioner, a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, and a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Charitable Trust Act, 1950, has questioned the rejection by respondents of its prayer to grant it approval under Section 35[1][ii] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act? for short), by order dated 23.12.2013. This order is passed by respondent no.1 “ Government of India through its Deputy Secretary, and respondent no.2 is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for Vidarbha Region. 2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioner was earlier granted approval after holding that it qualifies as an other institution? as employed in that section. Rejection in impugned order is after holding that the petitioner “ organization is mainly involved in running hospital and no education is imparted by it. It does not itself award/confer Ph.D. Degree upon anybody,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Swapna Joshi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.9.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge6 Nagpur in S.T. No.612/2011 thereby convicting the appellant (ori. accd.No.1-Sumit s/o Ramesh Chintalwar and appellant Amar @ Chhotu Ramesh Lohkare (ori. accd.No.2), under sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 4/25 of Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo (i) R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months u/s. 302 r/ws. 149 of IPC; (ii) R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months u/s 147 of IPC and; (iii) R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and, in default, to suffer R.I.for two months, under section 148 of IPC and (iv) R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months, u/s. 4 (25) of Arms Act, the appellant Sumit Chintalwar has preferred the Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Since the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur by judgment and order dated 4.2.2016 in Sessions Trial No. 488/14 has awarded death penalty to the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the reference has been made to this Court for confirmation in Criminal Confirmation Case No. 1/16. 2. Both the accused/appellants have also preferred appeals being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.2.2016. Though both the appellants are condemned persons, for the sake of convenience, hereinafter we will be referring to them as accused. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus: PW. 1 Dr. Mukesh Chandak, the first informant, is a resident of GuruVandana Housing Society, Lakadganj Road, Nagpur. PW.1 Dr. Mukesh Chandak as well as his wife Premal are both Dentists by profession and running a clinic known as Chandak Dental Clinic which is located at Darodkar Square, Central Avenue Road, Nagpur. The couple was blessed wit...
Tag this Judgment!