Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for hearing with consent of learned Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Mehroz Pathan, APP for the respondent no.1 and Mr. A.M. Rizwy, Advocate for the respondent no2. 3. The petitioner questioned the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Complaint No.5314/2008. The following order passed by learned Trial Court is as under: Read the complaint, verification of the complainant and documents filed by the complainant on record. Heard Advocate Mr. Rizvi for the complainant. On perusal of the complaint and verification of the complainant, it seems that the complainant have made out the prima facie substance for issuance of process for the offence punishable under sections 504, 506 and 509 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, issue summons to accused no.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 504,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21/11/1997, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in a Special Case No. 3 of 1989, whereby the original accused Wamanrao Bakaramji Pawar, Head Constable, B. No. 755 was convicted of offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count and fine in the sum of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in default of fine amount, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. 3. Facts, in nutshell, as under: - On 14/05/1987 at about 10.00 a.m., quarrel had taken place between Wasudeo Hande (PW3) and one Arun Shembe. Mr. Arun Shembe and his brother namely Sudhakar Shembe had beaten up Mr. Wasudeo (PW3) by cycle chain and in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21/11/1997, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in a Special Case No. 3 of 1989, whereby the original accused Wamanrao Bakaramji Pawar, Head Constable, B. No. 755 was convicted of offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count and fine in the sum of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in default of fine amount, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. 3. Facts, in nutshell, as under: - On 14/05/1987 at about 10.00 a.m., quarrel had taken place between Wasudeo Hande (PW3) and one Arun Shembe. Mr. Arun Shembe and his brother namely Sudhakar Shembe had beaten up Mr. Wasudeo (PW3) by cycle chain and in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12/07/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 18 of 1997, whereby the accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 2000/and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under: The accused was working as a District Manager, Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes development Corporation Ltd., Nagpur. On 22/06/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12/07/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 18 of 1997, whereby the accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 2000/and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under: The accused was working as a District Manager, Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes development Corporation Ltd., Nag...
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
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, governed by the Maharashtra Agricultural Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.1991 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur holding that the petitioner – Champalal could not have been retained in service, in public interest. Though this order mentions provision of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1979 Rules” for short) or Rule 13(1) thereof, it is not in dispute that same reference needs to be construed as reference to Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1964 Rules” for short). Petitioner, thereafter had preferred an appeal under Rule 13 of 1964 Rules before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and that Authority has maintained said order. 2. During the pendency of this challenge, the petitioner ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.1991 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur holding that the petitioner Champalal could not have been retained in service, in public interest. Though this order mentions provision of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Rules for short) or Rule 13(1) thereof, it is not in dispute that same reference needs to be construed as reference to Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Rules for short). Petitioner, thereafter had preferred an appeal under Rule 13 of 1964 Rules before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and that Authority has maintained said order. 2. During the pendency of this challenge, the petitioner expired on 03.01.2008 and his legal h...
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!