Amit Digvijay Singh vs Gokuldas Jagannath Bhutada And … on 19 July, 2019

On

1. This application takes an exception to the order passed by

the 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik (for short “said Court”)

on 09th May 2019 thereby issuing process against applicant for an

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 (for short “the said Act”).

Umesh Malani

::: Uploaded on – 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 20/07/2019 03:55:31 :::
2/15 915.APL.702.2019.doc

2. The present applicant is an accused in the Summary Case

No. 2373/2018 and first Respondent is original complainant before the

said Court. It was stated in the complaint that, complainant is an

agriculturist and resident of Kasabe Vani, Taluka Dindori, District

Nashik. The accused and the complainant were known to each other

and has had good acquaintances and were friends since long. It is

alleged that, the Accused met with the complainant and represented

that he was in need of money for his business. Accordingly, the

accused requested the complainant to give him the hand loan of Rs.

30,00,000/- (in words Rs. Thirty Lakhs only) for the purpose of his

various businesses. The accused assured the complainant that the said

amount will be refunded when money will be available with him.

Having a cordial relationship with the Accused, the complainant

relying upon the said assurance of the Accused paid him an amount of

Rs. 30,00,000/- in cash. Since the hand loan was given looking to the

cordial relationship between the parties the said loan was interest free

hand loan.

Sidharth Chauhan vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund And … on 19 July, 2019

On

::: Uploaded on – 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 20/07/2019 03:55:36 :::
Bhagyawant
2/15
judgment wp 762-19

2. The present writ petition is filed with the following substantive

prayer:-

b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2018 passed in C.C.
No. 8349/SS/2018 on exemption application dated
11.12.2018 filed on behalf of Petitioner by the Ld. 33 Rd
Metropolitan Magistare, Ballardpier, Mumbai;

Reliance Securities Limited vs Acuity Merchants Pvt. Ltd on 19 July, 2019

On

2. In brief, the facts are:

Respondent nos. 1 to 3 opened securities trading & demat

accounts with the petitioner in the year 2017. Various amounts

became due and payable by respondent nos. 1 to 3 to the petitioner

consequent to respondent nos. 1 to 3’s trading in securities through

petitioner on the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and the Bombay

Stock Exchange (BSE) and for availing service of the petitioner as

Depository Participant. The amount due and payable by respondent

nos. 1 to 3 was to the tune of about more than 18,90,00,000/-. It is

not in dispute that there were many rounds of negotiation between the

petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 3 for clearing all these amounts.

2/19
::: Uploaded on – 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 20/07/2019 04:53:37 :::

Dnyaneshwar S/O. Shahadeo … vs Govardhan S/O. Rajaram Sanap And … on 19 July, 2019

On

II. In the event of arrest of the applicants, namely, 1.

GOWARDHAN S/O RAJARAM SANAP and 2. VISHAL
S/O BHAUSAHEB KUMATKAR in connection with
crime no. 111 of 2019 registered with Patoda Police
Station, Patoda, District Beed for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149,
327, 341, 427, 323, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3
and 25 of Indian Arms Act, they be released on bail
on their furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- each with one
surety each of the like amount on the following
conditions;

a. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner.

Ganesh S/O Bhaurso Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 July, 2019

On

. The appellant-accused, who has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section

306 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten

years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default,

to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, as per the

judgment and order dated 04.02.2016 passed in

::: Uploaded on – 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::
(2)
Cri.Appeal No.173-18

Sessions Case No.15/2015, has filed this appeal

challenging the said conviction and sentence recorded

against him.

Govardhan S/O. Rajaram Sanap And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 July, 2019

On

II. In the event of arrest of the applicants, namely, 1.

GOWARDHAN S/O RAJARAM SANAP and 2. VISHAL
S/O BHAUSAHEB KUMATKAR in connection with
crime no. 111 of 2019 registered with Patoda Police
Station, Patoda, District Beed for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149,
327, 341, 427, 323, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3
and 25 of Indian Arms Act, they be released on bail
on their furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- each with one
surety each of the like amount on the following
conditions;

a. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner.

Samarth Rural Educational … vs State Of Maharashtra Through … on 19 July, 2019

On

1. After the hearing on the last occasion, today, the Pharmacy

Council of India has appeared before us.

2. The fourth respondent-Council has engaged Ms.Sandhya

Nanavare as an advocate.

3. She has handed over to us a communication of 18 th July,

2019 addressed to her. This communication, after setting out the

facts in relation to the petitioner’s institution, says that an

application was made by this institution on 21st August, 2017,

which was received in the Council’s office on 29th August, 2017.

That is after the cut-off date for considering the approval for

2017-2018. An inspection was arranged on 12 th and 13th April,

2018 and the inspection report was placed before the 104 th

Central Council meeting of the Pharmacy Council of India held on

7th and 8th August, 2018. The decision therein is then set out and

the approved capacity (intake) for conduct of first year for the

academic year 2018-2019 was 60 seats. Pertinently, it is stated

that regarding B-Pharm course, the approval was subject to

submission of consent of affiliation of Examining Authority and a

No-objection Certificate/Approval from the State Government

before making admissions. No admission was to be made without
Page 2 of 5
M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on – 20/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2019 00:55:12 :::
905-908 -wp7851-19+.doc

submission of above documents to the Pharmacy Council of India

(PCI). The note is that regarding increase in admission capacity,

compliance dated 11th June, 2018 was placed and considered and

it was decided to insist for full compliance of “The Bachelor of

Pharmacy (B.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014” particularly

regarding appointment of teaching staff with Ph.D. qualification.

Then, curiously, the note says that there is no compliance

received from the institution and when it applied for extension of

approval with 60 admissions to the Council for the academic year

2019-2020, the Council proposed to clarify that the institution

has not applied for increase in intake from 60 to 100. At

Appendix-I to the note is the copy of online application. It is in

these circumstances that when the Council met in April 2019, at

its 106th meeting, it decided to approve for conduct of second year

course of B.Pharm (2019-2020) with 60 students.