Madhya Pradesh Court October 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vidhyawati Construction Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR487(MP); 2006(1)MPLJ88
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') seeking appointment of the arbitrator.2. As per the applicant, pursuant to the invitation of tenders for the work of repair to service building and staff quarters at Upper Line Loco Area and Bajarang Colony under Zone No. III at Jabalpur and road side station Bheraghat, Adhartal, Deori and Ghosalpur and duty bunk in level crossing, the applicant had submitted his tender. The applicant's said tender was accepted by the first respondent on 06.10.1997, and it was awarded the construction work as per the contract agreement dated 21.05.1999. The said work was completed by the applicant within the extended date for completion of work.3. The applicant contends that part of the amount of bills of the work done has been paid to it, but the respondents did not pay the entire amount and, therefore, the claim was put forward by it before the respond...
Radha TIn Containers Vs. Anandram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC36
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved be inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 26th April, 1999 passed by M.A.C.T., West Nimar, Mandleshwar in claim case No. 8/97 whereby the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed holding that there was contributory negligence by the two vehicles, hence, the owner driver and Insurance Company of one of the vehicles shall be liable for 50% of the amount awarded and owner and driver of another vehicle shall be liable for rest of the amount of award, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that an accident took place on 20th January, 1997 between the truck bearing No. M.P.-09-K.A.-5260 and the truck bearing No. M.P.-10A-0553.3. The truck bearing No. M.P.-09-K.A.-5260 was driven by respondent No. 3 owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 4. The truck bearing No M.P.-10A-0553 was owned by the appellant, driven by respondent No. 5 and insured with respondent No. 6.4. Claimant-respondent No. ...
Kishore Kumar Vs. Bhoga Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT454; 2006(1)MPLJ390
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J. 1. This is a revision arising out of the order of learned R.C.A., Gwalior in Case No. 44/85-86/90/7. Before enterinto the controversy involved in the suit, I feel it apt to consider few things regarding the proceedings before the RCA and their maintenance.2. Rent Controlling Authority is appointed by the Collector with previous approval of the State Government under the provisions of Section 28 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Such an officer should not be below the rank of Deputy Collector. The powers of appointment are conferred on the Collector for the area within his jurisdiction to which the said Act applies. After insertion of chapter III-A w.e.f. 16-8-1983, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority has acquired a tremendous importance because in certain cases with respect to the specified category of landlords defined under Section 23-J of the said Act, the Rent Controlling Authority has exclusive jurisdiction and no appeal is provided aga...
Devendra Kumar JaIn Vs. G.N. Goyal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2006MP25; 2006(2)MPHT313; 2006(1)MPLJ472
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 4-10-2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopalin regular Civil Suit No. 3-B/2004 by which learned Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- in the Court.2. This order has been assailed by the petitioner on following grounds :--(i) That, the suit was filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') and while granting leave to defend in the case, no such condition was imposed by the trial Court. Then, at the time of hearing of summons for judgment, the trial Court cannot direct the petitioner to deposit the suit amount.(ii) That, in the case the stage of passing such an order was under sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Order 37 CPC which provides only furnishing of security and not payment of suit amount. In these circumstances, impugned order deserves to be quashed.3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent supported the order and submitted :--(a) That, though...
Ramdas Vs. Smt. Arti and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT245
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Applicant has assailed order dated 23-3-2005 passed by First Civil Judge Class-II, Burhanpur in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 12/2000 by which an application filed by respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed.2. Facts of the case are that: a suit was filed by Ramdas against respondent for declaration, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 127-A/1984. In the said suit, respondent was served and filed written statement. As the burden of proof was on the respondent, the Trial Court directed respondent to lead evidence. Several adjournments were sought and ultimately on 24-1-1989 Counsel for respondent pleaded no instructions in the case and the case proceeded exparte. Thereafter, the petitioner's evidence was recorded and an ex parte judgment and decree, was passed against respondent on 25-4-1989. Thereafter, on 16-8-2000 respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside exparte judgment and decree da...
Mrs. Padma Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR991]; 2006(1)MPHT203; 2006(1)MPLJ71
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. As identical facts and legal questions are involved in all these petitions hearing W.P. (S) No. 4380/05, W.P. (S) No. 4381/05, W.P. (S) No. 4388/05, W.P. (S) No. 4389/05, W.P. (S) No. 4390/05, W.P. (S) No. 4392/05 and W.P. (S) No. 4393/05, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. All the petitioners are working as Lecturers in the subject of Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology in various Higher Secondary Schools and by a common order Annexure P-1, dated 29-9-05 issued by the Directorate of Public Instructions, Bhopal, they have been transferred from the school where they are working for to present to various other schools.3. Grievance of the petitioners are that they are working in various schools situated in Gwalior District and by the impugned order, they are being transferred to various other schools either in district of Gwalior or to the nearby district of Bhind.4. It is the case of each of the petitioners that the order of transfer is issued on ...
Babloo @ Ganesh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT330
A.K. Saxena, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-4-2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No. 446/02, the appellant Babloo @ Ganesh has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC whereby he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default six months rigorous imprisonment.2. The appellant Babloo @ Ganesh has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the following grounds:-(A) There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant gave a beating to the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan resulting his death.(B) The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence properly.(C) The house in which the dead body of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan is said to have been found, was not occupied by the appellant alone and there were other inmates also.(D) There is no evidence to prove that the appellant gave a beating by a lathi and, therefo...
Smt. Rajshri Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT469; 2006(2)MPLJ121
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.Janpad Panchayat, Majholi, District Sidhi, advertised certain posts of Samvida Shala Shikshak (for short referred to as 'Teacher') in various schools. Total number of posts advertised were 28, out of which 11 posts were reserved for women candidates. These 11 posts of reserved category were to be distributed among the candidates of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes and also of the General category. For women category, only two posts were allotted-- one post of teacher in Arts faculty and another post of teacher in Science faculty. The petitioner applied for the post of Teacher in the Arts faculty against the post meant for women general category. The respondents No. 5 and 6 also applied for their appointment as Teachers against the post reserved for Other Backward Classes. After selection, a select list was published and the petitioner was shown as having been selected for the post of Arts Teacher in general category. Accordingly, an ord...
Dr. S.Z. Jafrey Vs. Modern Industrial Enterprises and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2006MP56; 2006(3)ARBLR424(MP); 2006(1)MPHT419
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. On 18-9-2001 an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which shall be referred hereinafter as Act, wherein it was prayed to appoint the arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. In the petition it was alleged that on 24-9-1998 respondent executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner which contains the following Arbitration Clause :-Any disputes/differences between the vendor or seller and purchaser shall be referred mutually to a arbitrator through arbitration under the prevailing Arbitration Laws.2. It was submitted that since there was a dispute regarding selling out the covered parking area of Dcvdarshan building situated at South Tukoganj, therefore, notices were issued to the respondents for appointment of arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties, in view of the arbitration clause quoted in the sale deed itself, but of no avail. Hence it was prayed to appoint ...
Suresh Agrawal Vs. Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT185
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Order dictated in open Court.2. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 10-1-2000 from its previous owner. He made construction of a Chabutra on the colony road on the area where the property is situated. It is further stated that construction is without permission from the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and the same is liable to be removed under Section 307(5) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Municipal Corporation did not submit its reply. However, respondent No. 2 refuted the allegations made in the application. It was contended by respondent No. 2 that he has not made any illegal construction. He also pleaded that there was no colony road as alleged by the petitioner. Learned Trial Court after recording evidence dismissed the application with a finding that it is clear from the evidence that construction of Chabutra has not been made on the proper...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »