Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: mumbai nagpur Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.006 seconds)

Oct 12 2010 (HC)

Shri Deorao Bhuraji Wasule, Aged About 62 Years, and ors. Vs, Smt. Rag ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Oct-12-2010

1. by this petition filed under article 226 of constitution of india, the petitioners challenge the order dated 25.08.1983 passed in change report inquiry no. 612 of 1983 in the matter of a public trust. by said orders, the deputy charity commissioner, nagpur region, nagpur, working under respondent no. 4 herein has held that property shown as property of public trust by name gupta dharamshala deserved to be deleted from the register of public trust maintained by the office of respondent no. 4 and has further observed that as there is no property of trust, the trust comes to an end. the entries of the trust made in the public trust register were also directed to be deleted. this order was challenged initially before the division bench and the petition was entertained as public interest litigation. on 28.12.2004, this court granted interim relief and restrained present respondents no. 1 & 2 from carrying on any construction activities on the site of gupta dharamshala. this interim order continues to operate even today. on 07.07.2010, division bench of this court found that the litigation was liable to be tried under the provisions of bombay public trust act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and, therefore, it was not inclined to continue to treat it as public interest litigation. accordingly, the matter was directed to be placed before the single judge.2. in this background, i have heard shri shelat, learned counsel for the petitioners, shri madkholkar, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2010 (HC)

Haribhau S/O Rajaramji Rewasekar, Aged About 60 Years, and ors. Vs. Sh ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Jul-21-2010

1. the appeal impugns judgment and order dated 5.12.1998 passed in regular civil appeal no. 247 of 1992 by learned additional district judge, amravati which arose from dismissal of regular civil suit no. 758 of 1988 decided by joint civil judge, junior division, amravati on 19.9.1992.2. the plaintiff shri swami narayan mandir by wahiwatdar had instituted regular civil suit no. 758 of 1998 for recovery of possession of open plot of land admeasuring 2603 square feet bearing plot no. 19, gandhi chowk, amravati city. the defendant occupied the plot as a tenant.3. by notice dated 1.4.1988, the plaintiff had terminated tenancy of the defendant and asked the defendant to vacate and pay arrears of rent. the defendant did not comply with the notice. hence, suit was filed.4. the defendant resisted the suit on the ground that, in absence of permission from the rent controller, the plaintiff could not have terminated his tenancy. the defendant also contended that the suit plot was leased in favour of the defendant in 1957 permanently and the defendant made permanent construction by spending rs.14000/- for it.4. the trial court found that the plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the suit plot as also arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits and decreed the suit for possession and part-decreed for amount of rs.2,625/- as arrears of rent and damages while ordering inquiry into the mesne profits under order 20, rule 12 of the code of civil procedure.5. the defendant preferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2010 (HC)

Deepak @ Oharilal Joshi, Aged About 20 Years, and ors. Vs. the State o ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Oct-28-2010

1. present criminal appeal is preferred by all the six accused against the judgment and order of conviction passed by 3rd adhoc additional sessions judge, nagpur. the impugned judgment and order was passed in sessions trial no. 422 of 2002 on 6th december 2004. by the said judgment and order, all the six accused were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 149, 147 and 148 of the indian penal code. the major punishment awarded against the appellants/accused is that of life imprisonment and fine of rs. 3000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the indian penal code and six months and fine of rs. 500/- for offences each under sections 147 and 148 of the indian penal code. accused were, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under section 4 read with section 25 of the arms act and section 37 (1) read with section 135 of the bombay police act. the state of maharashtra did not prefer appeal against the said acquittal.2. heard rival arguments at length. perused record & proceedings of the matter and also perused the reasoning given by learned 3rd adhoc additional sessions judge while holding all the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the penal code and other allied offences.3. the case of prosecution, in nutshell, is as under.4. all the accused are residents of mehandibagh, joshipura within the limits of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2010 (HC)

Narayan S/O Arjunji Vighne, Ashok S/O Purshottam Tathe, and ors. Vs. S ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Aug-09-2010

1. rule, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.2. the petitioners, who are 83 in number are raising exception to the order passed by the joint director (administration), handloom, powerloom & textiles, maharashtra state, nagpur in various applications tendered by them seeking permission to initiate proceedings by impleadment of liquidator of amravati cotton growers ltd. as respondent. the permission is sought for by the applicants as contemplated by section 107 of the maharashtra cooperative societies act. it is contended in the application by the petitioners that they were formerly engaged by respondent no. 3 in various capacities like supervisors, clerks, peons, workers, etc. till the end of 1998 when the mill was in terms of agreement arrived at during the liquidation proceedings agreed to be sold in favour of respondent no.4. the services of the employees are stated to have been terminated by respondent no.3society without following procedure as contemplated by law nor the terms of so called agreement arrived at between the prospective purchaser i.e. respondent no. 4 and the society were adhered to nor the agreement between recognized union and respondent no. 3 was given effect, which has resulted in nonpayment of dues to the workers by the society. it is contended that in terms of the agreement arrived at between respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4, the applicants were taken in employment sometime in the year .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2010 (HC)

Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd.Vs. Tarachand S/O Chiranjilal Sharma, Aged 53 ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Aug-26-2010

1. challenge in all this three writ petitions is to identical orders passed by labour court appeal by industrial court in revisions. all complaints are under section 28 of maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ulp act). contention of employer petitioner in short in all matters is labour court or industrial court could not have gone into the question of disputed status of respective respondent no.1 in all these writ petitions as these courts under section 28 exercise summary jurisdiction. hence, only when relationship of employer and employee is either undisputed or indisputable, the jurisdiction can be exercised. looking to the nature of controversy and at the request of parties, matters have been heard finally at admission stage by making rule returnable forthwith.i have heard shri v.r. thakur with shri h.v. thakur, learned counsel for employer/petitioner and shri s.d. thakur with shri p.s. kshirsagar, learned counsel for respective respondent no.1. learned agp has appeared for respondent nos. 2 and 3.2. respondent no.1 in writ petition no. 5318/2009 has filed ulp complaint 26/2008 challenging his oral termination dated 22/7/2008 on 19/8/2008. petitioner / employer filed written statement and also an application at exhibit 10 to dismiss that complaint as not tenable stating that employee was working as finishing supervisor/shiftin charge in managerial and administrative capacity at the time of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 2010 (HC)

Baburao Son of Gomaji Dahat, Aged About 67 Years, and ors. Vs. Jawahar ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Nov-15-2010

date of reserving the judgment. 25.10.2010 date of pronouncement. 15.11.2010 judgement1. writ petition no. 878 of 2010 is filed by assistant teacher baburao assailing the judgment dated 30/9/2009 of school tribunal, nagpur in his appeal no. stn/349/1995 allowing it partially by granting him salary of one year and he prays for direction to his employer and education officer to pay him back wages from 19/10/1995 till 31/7/2001 with all consequential benefits. he was terminated on 19/10/1995 and has attained the age of superannuation on 31/7/2001. employer educational institution has filed writ petition no. 3186/2010 for quashing very same judgment. in writ petition no. 359/2010 another assistant teacher mrs. sudha has also assailed the identical judgment dated 30/9/2009 of school tribunal, nagpur in her appeal no. stn/335/1995 allowing it partially by granting her salary of one year and she prays for direction to same employer and education officer to pay him back wages from 19/10/1995 till 31/7/2002 with all consequential benefits. she was also terminated on 19/10/1995 and has attained the age of superannuation on 31/7/2002. however as she worked with other school from 22/2/2001 to 31/7/2002, no relief is sought for this period. employer educational institution has filed wp 3187/2010 for quashing very same judgment. baburao joined the services on 1/9/1979 while sudha joined on 11/8/1981 and both were terminated on 19/10/1995 alleging reduction in number of sections in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2010 (HC)

Atul S/O Baburao Mandale Aged About 20 Years. Vs. the State of Maharas ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Sep-06-2010

1. the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 10.10.2009 in sessions case no.102/2007 decided by the learned sessions judge, chandrapur who was pleased to convict the appellant /accused for offence punishable under section 376 of the indian penal code ( in short "ipc") and sentenced him to suffer ri for a period of seven years and fine of rs.3000/ in default, to undergo further ri for six months. in addition, the appellant was also found guilty for offence punishable under section 323 ipc and sentenced to suffer ri for one year ; and also for offence punishable under section 506 part ii and sentenced to suffer ri for five years and fine in the sum of rs. 1000/ in default, ri for six months, with direction that sentences to run concurrently.2. the prosecution case in brief is that : prosecutrix mangala, aged about 17 years, was residing with her parents and younger sister laxmi at kantapeth mul dist.chandrpaur. since the appellant also hails from the same village, he was known to her. on 29.3.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. when the prosecutrix proceeded to answer nature's call, she noticed the appellant standing at the pan kisok of kashinath sopankar. while prosecutrix sat to ease herself, the appellant came near the prosecutrix. according to her, there was moonlight at that time; and all of sudden the appellant came, caught hold her hands and said that he wanted to have sex with her and started pulling her under threat that if she will shout, he would kill her. he had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2010 (HC)

Radheshyam S/O Zumbarlal Chandak, Aged About 60 Years, Vs. the Distric ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Oct-05-2010

1. this writ petition is placed before us to decide the following question of law, upon reference being made by the learned single judge (shri b.p. dharmadhikari, j.) as per his order dated 26-4-2010 : "whether the court invested with small cause powers under section 28 of 1869 act can function as such and exercise unlimited jurisdiction under chapter iv a-1 of 1887 act, without any ceiling on its pecuniary jurisdiction ?2. the learned single judge of this court, shri m.s. deshpande, j. (as he then was), in his judgment in salimkhan s/o azimkhan v. mohammad ibrahimkhan, reported in 1987 mh.l.j. 283, has taken the view that a civil judge, senior division, invested with the jurisdiction of the court of small causes by the high court under section 28 of the bombay civil courts act, 1869, has jurisdiction to try the suits or proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant irrespective of the value of the subject-matter of such suits or proceedings, as contemplated by section 26 under chapter iv-a-1 of the provincial small cause courts act, 1887.3. disagreeing with the aforesaid view, shri b.p. dharmadhikari, j., has expressed the opinion that section 28 of the bombay civil courts act, 1869 does not confer the power upon the high court to invest any civil judge with the jurisdiction of a court of small causes for trial of suit cognizable by such court, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suit and, therefore, any civil judge invested with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2010 (HC)

Baliram S/O Ramaji Ghate, Aged About 78 Years, Vs. 1] State of Maharas ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Aug-12-2010

1] the question referred to this full bench for consideration is :"whether the state can, in respect of the land though covered at the relevant time under the provisions of the ulc act, but acquired subsequently under the provisions of the land acquisition act, call upon the expropriated land holder to furnish an undertaking as contained in the communication dated 31.3.2006 that he will not seek enhanced compensation under the land acquisition act ?"2] the issue arose in a writ petition filed by the expropriated landholder challenging the condition sought to be imposed by the government that compensation would be released and remitted to him under the award only if he gave an undertaking to the effect that he would not seek its enhancement under section 18 of the land acquisition act.3] the facts which give rise to the question are as follows : the landholder holds land which was liable to be declared surplus under the provisions of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ceiling act"). he filed statements and returns under sections 6 & 7 of the ceiling act. a notification under section 10(1) giving the particulars of the vacant land held by the landholder in excess of the ceiling limit was published by the government on 31.12.1981. however, and it is undisputed, that the requisite notification under section 10(3) declaring that the excess land referred to in the earlier notification is deemed to have been acquired by the state .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2010 (HC)

Dinesh Son of Ramraj Yadav, Aged About 19 Years, and ors. Vs. the Stat ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Oct-01-2010

1. criminal appeal nos. 130 of 2004 and 343 of 2004 are filed by two different accused-appellants against the order of conviction and sentence. criminal appeal no. 403 of 2004 is filed by the state for enhancement of sentence awarded to accused ajay alias rajesh shivprasad sakhare through the impugned judgment.2. ajay and dinesh are accused nos.1 and respectively. the accused no.1 ajay alias rajesh was charged for the murder of rakesh dattaji chavan. both the accused were further charged for intentionally destroying the evidence of murder committed by accused no.1 by disposing of the corpse of rakesh after cutting it into pieces, shoving those into the gunny bag and the suitcase, and throwing the same in the public place.3. it is alleged that accused no.1 murdered rakesh dattaji chavan, aged 30 years, by assaulting him by a wooden rafter, knife and sattoor etc., and in order to screen the evidence, cut the head from body, cut the body into pieces, shoved those into polythene bags and into a gunny bag and disposed of the bags by throwing near zansi rani square, and destroyed or otherwise disposed of some of the body parts, which could never be traced.4. prosecution has examined in all 23 witnesses.5. pw 7 sau. pushpabai mahadeorao bilulkar is cited as eye-witness.6. classification of other witnesses is as follows:- [a] pw 1 dattaji ajabrao chavan and pw 2 ashabai dattaji chavan are the father and mother of deceased respectively. pw 2 ashabai chavan has lodged the complaint. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //