Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission in view of the urgency expressed by all. 2. The petitioner-Dental College and Hospital has prayed for several reliefs, which are reproduced as under: a. quash and set aside the impugned refusal/nonrenewal of the Permission as communicated under Letter dated 30.3.2013 (Annexure-P1) interalia, direct the respondent No.1 Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Dental Education Section, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi to renew/grant permission for 3rd Year MDS Course of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society's Dental College and Hospital, Amravati for the Academic Session 2013-14, in view of above and in the interest of justice. b. considering the Representation dated 16/18.4.2013 (Annexure-P4) of the petitioner College, direct the respondent No.2 Dental Council of India, Kotla road, New Delhi to Inspect and Verify the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.2011, passed by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exh.5, in Special Civil Suit No.1186/2010, rejecting the said application for grant of temporary injunction, the present appeal against order has been filed by the original plaintiffs- appellants herein. FACTS : 5. The appellants are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.1186/2010 for declaration, permanent injunction and damages in which they filed application (Exh.5) for grant of temporary injunction pending decision of the suit. In the suit, they have prayed for a decree to declare order dated 30.9.2010 passed by defendant No.2 Chairman of defendant No.1 Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short, hereinafter referred to as the N.I.T. ) as illegal, mala fide and in collusion with defendant No.4 Corporator of Nagpur Municipal Corporation (for short, herei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this Public Interest Litigation basically modification in user of a plot in Development Plan, its allotment to Respondent No. 9, illegal building construction upon it and failure of land owner Nagpur Improvement Trust (N.I.T.) or Planning Authority Nagpur Municipal Corporation to exercise rights or to discharge obligations, are the challenges which arise for consideration. The development plan was finalized under S. 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter MRTP Act) and NIT constituted under the Nagpur Improvement Trust,1936 (NIT Act hereafter) was the planning authority in respect of said plot till 27.02.2002. Thereafter, it is the NMC functioning under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The Development Control Rules of 1983 and 2000 (hereinafter DCR) also need to be looked into. 2. Subject matter is a plot having House No. 1155 CTS No. 1143 at Ward No. 74, ad measuring little over 1.14 Acre. The said plot is for commerc...
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!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
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
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants-employees have questioned the judgment dated 15.10.1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2618/1997 since reported at 1998(3) Mah.L.J. 897 (Executive Engineer vs. Ananta and Others). They were the respondents in the said petition. The learned Single Judge has, in said judgment, found that services of present appellants are not covered under the terms of Kalelkar Award and hence their termination cannot be faulted. However, they are found to be entitled to compensation as per and under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, as retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court earlier had on 4.6.1994 in ULP (Complaint) Nos. 319/1984 to 322/1984 directed the respondent/employer to reinstate these appellants to their formal posts with continuity of service and full back wages. The Industrial Court has dismissed U.L.P. Revision No. 158/1994 filed by the respondent/employer a...
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
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Considering the nature of controversy, after hearing the respective counsel on 12.07.2016, we adjourned the matter to today. Today, we have heard Shri Dadhe, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Patil, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Kukday, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. By placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 30.11.2015 in Writ Petition No. 2871 of 2012 (Dr. Percy s/o Savakshaw Jilla vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) delivered at Aurangabad Bench, Shri Dadhe, learned counsel submits that the petitioner, who is a leading Medical Practitioner in the city of Nagpur, dealing exclusively with Heart treatment is required to use the 2D Echo Colour Doppler Machine for treating his patients. To attend the patients, he is required to visit I.C.C.U. at Shravan Hospital, Nandanwan and Sanjivani Critical Care at Sakkardara, Nag...
Tag this Judgment!