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 Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. The appellant who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code) has challenged judgment dated 31/07/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.82 of 2012. The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the material on record is that on 08/05/2012 a call was received by the City Police Station, Chandrapur that a foul smell was coming from a house owned by one Harishchandra Chamate. The appellant along with his family was residing therein. Said Harishchandra came on the spot after which the lock of the door was broken by the police. There the dead body of one Panchafula, the sister of Harishchandra was found. On that basis, said Harishchandra lodged his report on 08/05/2012. 2. After the report was registered, investigation was carried out. A chargesheet was duly filed in which the appellant was arrayed as an a...
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
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition by consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This petition was assigned to this Court pursuant to the direction dated 30.6.2015 from the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court. 3. The facts of the case, are thus: The petitioner is contesting the general elections as Member of Kanzara village panchayat to be held on 4.8.2015 from Ward No.2 of the said village panchayat. Respondent No.1/Tahsildar, Kanzara village, Taluka Mangrulpir and respondent No.2/Anil Bhaurao Yewtikar are appointed as returning officer to held elections of village panchayat of Kanzara pursuant to election notice dated 4.7.2015 issued by respondent No.1/Tahsildar, Kanzara, Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 returning officer could not have considered nomination form of respondent No.3 Sunil Namdeorao Harne for contesting the election as Member of the village pancha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks an order for quashing and setting aside of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 3073 of 2015 dated 25.03.2015 punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act), registered with Police Station, Frezarpura, Amravati. 2. This Court had issued notice on 17.04.2015 and directed that the charge sheet shall not be filed without its permission. Thereafter, non-applicant “ State of Maharashtra has filed reply on 05.05.2015. In this background, we have heard Shri Shashank Manohar with Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Mehta, learned APP for the non-applicant finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith with consent. 3. FIR No. 3073 of 2015 has been questioned only on the ground that it is second FIR. This Court is not called upon to find out whether allega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment [Per Court]: 1. Jawaharlal Darda Education Society, Yavatmal, is a registered Society/Public Trust running educational institutions. Shri Kishor Sureshchandra Darda is the Secretary of the said society. Shri Prakash Dhanraj Chopda is the President of the society. Shri Vijay Jawaharlal Darda, the ex-President of the society and a Sitting Member of the Parliament, is now the Trustee of the Trust. Shri Rajendra Jawaharlal Darda is the Vice President of the society who was also Cabinet Minster of the State Government in the last government. Devendra s/o Vijay Darda and Rushi s/o Rajendra Darda, the sons are also the trustees of the said trust along with Kirti Dhanraj Gandhi. Ashok Shankarrao Chauhan was the then Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. For brevity, the criminal applications filed by them, which are being disposed of, by this common judgment, are specified as under:- 2. Criminal Application (APL) No.469/2011 is filed by Kishor s/o Sureshchandra Darda:- Resp...
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: 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed on29/11/2002 by Judge of the Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Case No.9 of 1993 thereby convicting the present appellant, who was accused No.1, of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Name of respondent No.2 deleted as per order dtd.7/2/2003. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the P.C. Act, for short). 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under.: 2.1 Complainant Prashant Rajendra Wankhede was proprietor of a bakery which he ran under the name and style as, Golden Bakery. The appellant-accused No.1 had assisted the complainant in obtaining loan of Rs.34,000/- from a Bank for the purpose of his bakery. The complainant thought that his bakery got a permanent registration from the District Industries Centre, Nagpur (D.I.C., Nagpur, for short). The appellant was then working as Industries Inspector with D....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Central Act' for short) for the purpose of laying of bye-pass at Buldhana which is said to be the part of Malkapur-Solapur State Highway. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner nos.1 to 4 (the name of the petitioner no.1 has, since been deleted) are the owners of Gat No. 170, while the petitioner nos.5 to 7 are the owners of Gat No.169 of mouza Sagwan, Tahsil and District-Buldhana. A proposal for acquisition of portion of the said fields of the petitioners along with others was received in the office of the respondent no.5Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana on or about 8.4.2008. According to the petitioners, they had not received any notices for joint measurement. The petitioners also contended that the proposed acquisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Heard Advocate Shri Shelat for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Rao for the respondents. 2. The petitioner joined the service as a Sepoy at Central Prison, Nagpur on 1.11.19964 and was eventually confirmed on 1.11.1965. The petitioner had put in 26 years of service before his dismissal on 8.9.1990, which order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. On 29.4.1988, it is said that the petitioner was on leave and had gone to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha District Yavatmal for his personal work. It so happened that the petitioner entered the Court room, chewing Pan. The learned Magistrate, taking cognizance of the incident, issued a show-cause-notice to the petitioner and proceeded to convict him for the offence punishable under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act (Fort short the Act). The petitioner was accordingly fined for Rs.50/ for the said offence. It appears that this incident and consequent...
Tag this Judgment!