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
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Since the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur vide his Judgment and Order dt.3.12.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.81 of 2014 has awarded death sentence to the appellant/accused herein and directed him to be hanged by neck till death, present reference has been made to this Court. The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of sentence as recorded by the learned trial Judge thereby holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months respectively. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus: The accused is husband of deceased Shamshad. Deceased Isana was daughter of deceased Shamshad and the appellant. Deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. In Land Acquisition Reference Case No.28 of 1991, the Reference Court, acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), has enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,75,000/to Rs.9,25,650/per hectare, after deducting the amount already paid to the respondent No.1/claimant. Apart from this, the claimant is also held entitled to the statutory benefits consequently available in law. This first appeal has been preferred by the acquiring body, challenging the enhancement of compensation. 2. Shri Moharir, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-acquiring body, has urged : (1) that the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court, as the appellant was not permitted to file written statement and was not joined in the reference as party-respondent; (2) that the reference should have been dismissed as barred by limitation; and (3) that the Reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the compensation. 3. The points...
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
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
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
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
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. By these petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging validity of the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?) being unconstitutional. The petitioners have, in the alternative, prayed for striking down Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 24 of the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are as under : The petitioner M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, which is a partnership firm, was constituted originally by eight partners. Since dispute arose between the partners, the partnership firm came to be dissolved in January 1974. A suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts was filed in 1974 being Special Civil Suit No.9/1974, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. In the said suit, Receivers came to be appointed from time to time in respect of properties of the partnership firm. The partnership ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. This is a Criminal Reference Registration No.1/2013 for confirmation of death sentence against accused no.1-Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan. 2. Both the accused persons Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan and Nitin Nandkishor Gudadhe have also preferred Criminal Appeal No.225/2013 praying for acquittal against judgment of conviction for offences punishable under section 302 and 392 of I.P.C. and accused no. 1-Ajay is sentenced to death while accused no.2-Nitin Gudadhe is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the matters are taken up together for hearing and disposal. Hence, this common judgment. FACTS: 3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Vijayatai Vitthalrao Pund aged about 75 years, who was mother of PW1-Sunil Vitthalrao Pund, a practicing lawyer by profession at Amravati was residing in Venus Park area of Kanta Nagar, Amravati. The house was constructed by PW1-Sunil about 67 years befor...
Tag this Judgment!