Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by communication dt.31.3.2015 issued by respondent no.4 directing the petitioners to furnish the resolution of Gram Sabha thereby resolving to grant No Objection for renewal of petitioners' licences. The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the provisions under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Area (Prohibition and Regulation of Licensing) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2015") are not applicable for renewal of the licenses which are in existence prior to the coming into force of the said Rules. 3. All the petitioners are holding country liquor CL-III/FL-II licenses in Ghatanji taluka, District Yavatmal. Undisputedly, the petitioners are running their business in the areas which fall under the Scheduled Areas declared for the State of Maharashtra by the President under Articl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25-2-2014 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in Revision No.175/TENB/2000, rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 2 years and 8 months caused in filing an application for bringing the names of legal representatives of the original non-applicant Smt. Gangubai Shridhar Kulkarni on record. The order also rejects the application for condonation of delay of 98 days caused in filing an application for bringing the name of the legal representative Umakant, one of the legal representatives of Smt. Gangubai. 3. The petitioners have preferred Revision No.175/TENB/2000 under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 against the order dated 16-10-1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, in Appeal No.TNC107/Kapsi/10/1998-99 pertaining to field Survey No.21/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.01.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner together with the order passed by the appellate authority dated 17.03.2005 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under: FACTS: The petitioner initially was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 24.01.1975 with the Bank of Baroda. He was promoted as Officer in the year 1987. He was further promoted in the pay scale of MM-II in the year 1995. In the year 1998, the petitioner was transferred to Old Cotton Market, Akola branch of Bank of Baroda. The misconduct, which the petitioner committed, relates to this branch when he was discharging his duties in the managerial capacity with said branch. The petitioner was suspended from service on 11.07.2001. On 15.04.2002, the respondent no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order delivered on 26.11.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Achalpur, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: This is a case wherein a 2-Year old marriage between the appellant and the deceased Ratna met with an abrupt and unfortunate end due to indiscretion shown by the appellant, which proved to be fatal for his wife. The couple was residing at village Diya, Tahsil Dharni, District Amravati together with their 9-month old son. The appellant, it is alleged, had the habit of consuming liquor and returning home intoxicated. It is further alleged that in the state of intoxication, the appellant used to suspect the fidelity of his wife, deceased Ratna, and sometimes, even beat her. Evening of 29.4.2011, however, was different for the couple, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. By the present appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appellant takes exception to his conviction for having committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (a) as well as for the offence under Section 5 (j) (ii) and 5 (l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for short the said Act ]. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 and Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code [for short the Penal Code ]. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant, who was serving as a driver, was acquainted with one S - the prosecutrix. The appellant developed friendship with S and both had decided to get married after S attained the age of majority. In November, 2010, when the prosecutrix was studying in VIIIth Standard, the appellant had been to her place and had stated that as they had decided...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1. The family court appeal is ADMITTED and decided finally after perusing the original record and proceedings. 2. By this family court appeal, the appellant-wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Akola, dated 17.06.2013, allowing the petition filed by the respondent-husband for a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the appellant-wife had illicit relationship with the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 during the subsistence of her marriage with the respondent-husband. 3. The appellant-wife (hereinafter referred to as the wife for the sake of convenience) and the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the husband ) were married at Hiwarkhed in Akola district on 25.06.2000, according to the Hindu rites and custom. A girl named Khushi and a boy named Harsh were born from the wedlock. The parties resided together till 08.06.2012 at Akola. The husband then filed a petition for a decree of divorce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. All these four petitions challenge the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra/respondent no.1 herein dated 12th November, 2014 under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) thereby sanctioning modifications with certain conditions in the Development Plan for the City of Nagpur and for that purpose, amending notification dated 4th November, 2008. 2. The facts and the grounds raised in all these petitions are almost identical with one additional factual challenge insofar as Writ Petition No.5056 of 2016 is concerned. As such, all these four petitions are heard together and decided by this common Judgment and Order. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petitions are as under: In the year 2000-2001, the Planning Authority for the City of Nagpur had proposed to increase width of one road known as Kelibag Road from 15 meters to 24 meters. In the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. In Special Civil Suit No. 183 of 1987, the trial Court passed a decree on 28.03.1991 holding that the plaintiff do recover the possession of the suit property from the defendants along with an amount of Rs.9,000/- as past mesne profit. An enquiry under Order XX, Rule 12 of C.P.C has also been directed to be made. Regular Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1991 preferred by the original defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1991 preferred by one Yeshwant against the decision in Regular Civil Suit No.230A of 1991, were decided by the lower appellate Court by common judgment and order dated 24.03.1995. Appeal No. 125 of 1991 was partly allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 183 of 1987 to the extent of recovery of damages of Rs.9,000/-, but rest of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Regular Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1991 was dismissed. This second appeal is preferred by the original d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Rule. Taken up for final disposal. 2. In both these matters, the petitioners were elected as a Member of a Panchayat in the election held on 22-4-2015. By common order dated 8-12-2015, both the petitioners were disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act ), and the said order has been confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in an appeal preferred under Section 16(2) of the said Act. 3. The authorities below have held that petitioner-Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade in Writ Petition No.431 of 2016 is residing on the property admeasuring area 37.50 sq.mtrs. of Plot No.957 owned by Tukaram Karnaji Bhadade, which is an encroachment over the land owned by the Public Works Department. In respect of petitioner-Sau. Sangita Vijay Choudhary in Writ Petition No.514 of 2016, the finding is recorded that she is residing on Plot No.77, which is the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Accused Mahendra Bhaskar Pavre has been sentenced to death by Additional Sessions Judge (Link Court), Mehkar vide judgment dated 16.05.2016 in Sessions Trial No.42/2014. Prosecution case in brief is P.W.5 Chhaya is his wife. Deceased Ku. Kalyani (5 years) and deceased Ku. Shital (2 years) were their daughters. They have a son by name Yuvraj, who was then 7 years old. On 24.01.2014, father of Chhaya by name Tejrao Vithoba Thorve (P.W.6) came to her residence at village Jaulka at about 3 p.m. Accused returned back to home at about 5 p.m. in an inebriated condition. He asked Chhaya why her father had arrived, quarreled with her, beat her up by fists and slaps. He also slapped Tejrao when latter tried to save his daughter. Chhaya then cooked food and after dinner family went to sleep. Chhaya and her two daughters slept inside the room, while Tejrao and Yuvraj slept in verandah of house of Bhaskar, who happens to be father of accused. Accused slept in front of the ...
Tag this Judgment!