Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard, finally. 2. By way of this criminal application, the applicant is challenging the order passed below Exh.1 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 83 of 2012 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Kopargaon which is now registered as R.T.C. No. 121 of 2012 thereby issuing process against the applicant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of I.P.C. and the judgment and order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 2013, by which the order of issue process passed by the Magistrate, is confirmed. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:- a) The applicant is working as police constable posted at police station Kopargaon since 2011. Respondent No.2 came to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 65 of 2012 and after his arrest, he was produced before the J.M.F.C. Kopargaon. Respondent No.2 has filed complaint before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a question of great significance and importance. That question is whether the respondents to this writ petition were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners before us requesting for grant of permission to form an association of police personnel for the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police and below. 2. Though the petitioners have understood the controversy as above, there are other issues involved. That is arising out of a refusal of the then Director General of Police, vide the impugned order, to the concerned police officials to establish an association of policemen. It is the permission to establish such association which itself is rejected. This rejection is challenged on the ground that it violates the freedom guaranteed vide Article 19 of the Constitution of India and particularly Article 19(1)(c). That right to freedom and in the subject case of forming asso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Notification bearing No.SRO 150 dated 19th June, 1976 (for short, the said Notification ) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence (Respondent No.1). This Notification is issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 read with section 7(c) of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short, the said Act ). By virtue of this Notification, certain restrictions are imposed on the enjoyment of land in the State of Maharashtra and more particularly described in the Schedule thereto. Apart from challenging the said Notification, the Petitioner has also challenged Condition No.55 imposed in the revised Letter of Intent ( LOI ) dated 30th May, 2009 requiring the Petitioner to obtain the NOC of the Juhu Wireless Station, being a Division of Respondent No.2. 3. Som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The Indian Railways is before this Court in the present writ petition. The challenge in the petition is to the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1238/1994 dated 16.06.1999. 2. By the impugned judgment, the tribunal had partly allowed the original application filed by the respondent and thereby respondent's dismissal from service was converted into the compulsory retirement with effect from the date of order of dismissal. 3. Such of the facts, which are necessary to address the challenge raised by the petitioner in respect of the judgment impugned borne out from the record are stated hereunder. 4. The respondent herein was working as Travel Ticket Examiner in the South Eastern Railways. On 04.05.1983, a memorandum bearing No.COM/OS/ClIII/TTE/NGP/SR/83/14 was issued to the respondent from the office of Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Nagpur South Eastern Railway. By the said memorandum, it was informed to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Prakash D. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutors waive service in both petitions. 2. The Petitioners in both these petitions have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the first information reports (`FIRs') which are subject matter of the respective petitions. The parties in both the petitions have sought quashing of the impugned FIRs on the ground that there has been amicable settlement between them. The parties have lodged cross complaints against each other which are under challenge in the aforesaid petitions and hence the same can be disposed of by a common order. 3. Criminal Writ Petition No.2567 of 2016 assails FIR registered with Kurla Police Station vide CR No.267 of 2016. The FIR was registered on 15 July 2016 at the instance of Respondent no.2 in the said petition for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC'). The Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
CONTENTS A. Background............................................................................. 3 B. Facts....................................................................................... 8 C. The Plaintiffs Case on Facts .................................................18 D. The Public/Private Divide.................................................... 20 The ASCI Cases................................................................. 20 Nagle v Feilden................................................................... 22 Public Law v Private Law: Blurring Boundaries?.................. 29 E. The Public/Private Divide and the Limits of Judicial Interference ...............................................31 F. The BDB S Defence............................................................. 43 G. Conclusion And Order.......................................................... 50 A. BACKGROUND 1. The four Plaintiffs impeach the Defendant s notice dated 1st August 2015 communicating to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Prakash D. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for State. Mr.Shailendra Mishra and Mr.A.R.Maurya waive service for private Respondents respectively in these petitions. 2. Both the petitions involve connected issues and the same are disposed of by common judgment and order. The Petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Petitioners have challenged the first information reports (FIRs) on the ground that there has been settlement between both the parties, who had agreed to quash the criminal proceedings by consent of each other. 3. Criminal Writ Petition No.1936 of 2016 assails FIR bearing CR No.28 of 2016 registered with Dindoshi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 392, 448, 341, 323, 506, 427, 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Petitioners are impleaded as accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The applicant herein, who was the superintendent of Police at Banaskantha, District Gujarat, has been arrayed as accused No.24 in Sessions Case No.177/2013 @ 178/2013 @ 577/2013 @ 312/2014 for offences under sections 120B r/w. 302 and 201 of the IPC. The applicant had filed an application at Exh.509 for dropping the proceedings for want of sanction under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. By another application at Exh.549 the applicant had prayed for discharge on the ground that there was no prima facie material to show his involvement in the crime. The learned Sessions Judge having examined the matter did not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the applicant and consequently dismissed both these applications by a common order dated 7.4.2015. The applicant has not challenged the dismissal of his discharge application, but by this application he has challenged the order of dismissal of application at Exh. 509. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Thorat for the applicant has submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Prakash D. Naik, J.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned APP waives service for Respondent State. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The issues involved in both these petitions are interconnected with each other and hence, the petitions are disposed of by common judgment and order. In both these petitions, the petitioners and the respective complainants have submitted that the parties involved therein have resolved their disputes and have approached this Court for quashing by consent, the respective criminal proceedings. 4. Criminal writ petition no.4995 of 2015 is preferred by the petitioners who are original accused in C.R. No.45 of 2015, registered with Umadi Police Station, District Sangli. The said FIR was registered at the instance of second respondent for the offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition challenges order dated 27 June 2016 passed by Respondent No.1 dismissing the Petitioner from the services of Respondent No.1 which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 12 April 2016. The Petitioner has also sought direction against Respondent No.1 to reinstate the Petitioner in service. 3. The Petitioner was working as a Senior Manager (Maintenance) with Respondent No.1. In or about September,2014 on a complaint of one Mr.Tushar Wakade who was awarded a contract by Respondent No.1, the Petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A FIR was registered by CBI under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1998 on the ground that the Petitioner had demanded illegal gratification. On 15 September 2014 the Petitioner came to be suspended. On 13 September 2014 the Petitioner was enlarged on bail. Thereafter before the learned Special Court, a closure repor...
Tag this Judgment!