Anil Rampratap Goyal vs Katyayanji S/O. Vishwambhar … on 3 August, 2018

On

The parties to these Writ Petitions are the

same and the questions proposed to be considered

therein also are identical. Therefore, they are being

decided by this common judgment.

2. The respondent filed complaints bearing

numbers 1732 of 2016 and 1715 of 2016 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act (“the Act”, for short)

against accused no.1, a partnership firm namely,

M/s.Rampratap Ghanshamdas Drugs Division, Swami

Complex, Sarojini Devi Road, Jalna, and three others,

on the say that they are partners of accused no.1.

The present petitioner is accused no.4. According to

the respondent, accused nos.2 and 3 as well as the

present petitioner, being partners of accused no.1,

were looking after the day-to-day business

transactions when the cheques in question were

::: Uploaded on – 04/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2018 01:43:49 :::
3 CR.WP148 and 149

issued. They were responsible for the conduct of the

business of accused no.1. It is further stated that

the petitioner approached the respondent and

requested to lent certain amount for the business of

accused no.1. Accordingly, the respondent lent

Rs.10,00,000/- on 04.10.2013 and Rs.6,00,000/- on

19.08.2013 by issuing cheques bearing numbers 112808

and 071467 drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch Jalna. The

petitioner encashed those cheques and utilised the

said amounts for the business of accused no.1. It is

further stated that the petitioner paid nominal

interest on the amounts of loan. However, accused

nos.1 to 3 and the present petitioner failed to repay

the loan amounts to the respondent, despite repeated

demands. Ultimately, accused nos.1 to 3 and the

petitioner issued cheques in the sums of

Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Sundarlal

Sawji Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jintur, Branch Jalna on

30.03.2016, which were signed by accused no.2 being

the authorised signatory of accused no.1 –

::: Uploaded on – 04/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2018 01:43:49 :::

The Union Of India And Ors vs Narendra Gupta And Ors on 3 August, 2018

On

page 1 of 8
SKC JUDG-WP-7301-02

3] The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order

dated 20.10.2001 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal

(CAT), Mumbai dismissing O.A. No. 669 of 1997 instituted by the

respondents. The CAT, by the impugned judgment and order, has

directed the petitioners to pay to the respondents “training

allowance” in terms of O.M. dated 31.3.1987 and O.M. dated

9.7.1992.

4] Mr. Vinod Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits

that in terms of clause 2(i) of O.M. dated 31.3.1987 permanent

faculty members of training institute are not entitled to any training

allowance. He points out that all the respondents are permanent

faculty members at the Institute of Armament Technology (IAT)

established by the Ministry of Defence Training and Teaching of

Group-A Officers. He therefore, submits that none of the

respondents are entitled to any training allowance, which is not

meant to be awarded to permanent faculty members in terms of

O.M. dated 31.3.1987 and O.M. dated 9.7.1992.

Salim Jamshed Ali Shaikh @ Kanya vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2018

On

2. Heard Shri. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Smt. V.S. Mhaispurkar, learned APP. for the State.

Perused the record.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, API Kedari Pawar

(P.W.2)on 10.12.2009 when was present in the Anti Narcotic Cell

Unit situated within the precincts of Azad Maidan Police Station at

about 8.15 hours received specific information from reliable

informer that, the original accused No.2, Parshuram G. Bodke @

Raju was to carry a contraband namely ‘Charas’ which he had

procured from two persons namely Sultan and Gulam Nabi,

residents of Jammu and Kashmir and was to arrive at about 13.00 to

13.30 hours (1.00 to 1.30 p.m.) near Bislary Compound situated at

Western Express Highway Gate, Andheri (W), Mumbai from an

Indigo Car bearing No. MH-16-R-4609 for selling it to the appellant.

The informant had given specific description of the appellant and

the co-accused. P.W. No.2 Keadri Pawar reduced the said

information in writing in the Information Register and also in the

::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2018 01:36:05 :::
Nalawade A.S. 3 /11 201-apeal-374-12

Station Diary and thereafter he conveyed the said information

telephonically to his superior officers.

Asaram Hirubhau Chormale vs Bahadursingh Swatantrasingh … on 3 August, 2018

On

2 Exception is taken to the judgment and order dated

::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2018 01:40:33 :::
2

11.9.2014 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal

Revision 15 of 2012, by and under which, the order dated

14.11.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Samudrapur dismissing Criminal Complaint Case 655 of 2009 is

set aside.

3 The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for

want of sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (‘Code’ for short). The revisional Court held that the

applicant – accused is not entitled to the protective umbrella

under section 197 of the Code.

Satishkumar B. Mishra vs Union Of India on 3 August, 2018

On

page 1 of 12
JUDG-WP-4044-99

3] The petitioner, whilst in Government service was

charged for misconduct and penalty of compulsory

retirement from service was imposed upon him. The

petitioner challenged this penalty by instituting Original

Application No. 616 of 1990 which was disposed of by the

CAT vide its judgment and order dated 7th February 1992.

The penalty of compulsory retirement was set aside mainly

on the technical ground that there was failure to furnish the

petitioner with the copy of enquiry report. The respondents

were given liberty to continue the disciplinary proceedings

but after furnish of copy of enquiry report to the petitioner.

The petitioner, in the meantime, was directed to be

reinstated in service.

Nisar Fatema D/O. Amiruddin … vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 3 August, 2018

On

2. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in

Madina-Tul-Uloom Education Society’s Higher Secondary

School/Junior College at Nanded on 14 th July, 1984. Her

date of birth was recorded as 2nd March, 1960. According

to the petitioner, her correct date of birth was 14th

December, 1960. She applied to the Principal for

::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2018 01:36:18 :::
3 criwp844-2018

correcting the date of birth on 13th February, 1987. She

further sent a reminder on 24 th April, 1988. However,

due to the dispute between two rival groups of the

Education Society, the request of the petitioner for

correction of her date of birth remained unattended.

The petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal in

the month of July, 2016. She filed O.M.C.A. (i.e.

“Other Misc. Civil Application) No.905 of 2017 before

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nanded on 23 rd

October, 2017 seeking an order under Section 13 (3) of

the Act for making entry of her date of birth in the

Register of Births and Deaths. It was assigned to the

Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.5), Nanded.

The learned Magistrate allowed that application on 30 th

November, 2017 and directed respondent No.2 to register

the date of birth of the petitioner as “14 th December,

1960”.

Dayanand S/O Shivdas Rajmane And … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2018

On

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellants-accused, challenging the

judgment and order passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge,

Latur, on 06.08.2015 in Sessions Case No.68 of 2012, thereby

convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections

::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::
crapl724.15
-2-

302 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rs. One

Thousand only], in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months.

The appellants are further convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- [Rs. Five

Hundred only], in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months.