Madhya Pradesh Court October 2007 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.
Kashiram Vs. Hariram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT170; 2008(1)MPLJ651
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. In short, the petitioner was allotted a land comprised in Survey No. 204 in area 2 hectares by way of settlement vide order of Tehsildar, Tehsil Kolaras (District Shivpuri) marked as Annexure P-3, dated 23-5-1987. It is stated that possession was handed over to the petitioner pursuant to the order of settlement and since then the petitioner has been continuing in cultivating possession as revealed in the Khasra of the 2004-05 marked as Annexure P-4. It is pertinent to note that in column No. 5 crops of soyabeen and wheat are mentioned whereas in column No. 12 it is mentioned that the land has facility of irrigation by a personal tube well. Name of the petitioner is also recorded as Bhumiswami, however, with a prohibition of sale.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted a revision after a lapse of 13-14 years before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division against the order of settlement dated 23-5-1987. This was allowed vide order dated 14-9-2001 vide Annexure...
Y. Yohannan Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT226
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this intra-court appeal preferred under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellant has called in question the sustainability of the order dated 10.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6002/2003.2. The appellant entered the services in the Police Department as an L.D.C. on 5.5.1964 and was promoted to the post of U.D.C. with effect from 30.9.1983. He was posted in Central Police Motor Transport (for short 'CPMT') as UDC which is also known as Contingent Clerk. Three clerks, namely, Ravindra Kumar, Om Prakash Shakya and Ms. Asha Manekar were working under him during the period August, 1985 to March, 1986 whereas he was only entitled to one LDC. However, whenever there was heavy work more hands were provided. Such L.D.Cs were required to pass the bills. Contingency section was a part of Accounts Branch and the Accountant was the In-charge of the same having the supervisory control over the ...
Smt. Shashibai and Five ors. Vs. Smt. Revabai Agrawal and Four ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP64; 2007(4)MPHT467; 2008(1)MPLJ92:2008AIHC658(F.B)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this reference are that a Civil Suit No. 1-A/81 filed by the husband and father of respondents 1(a) and 1(b) respectively, late Chhotelal Agrawal for certain reliefs was decreed by judgment and decree dated 22.2.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Harda Camp Sohagpur. The appellants filed First Appeal No. 86 of 1991 and a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment and decree dated 7.2.1996 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the applicants filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 62 of 1997 under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. By order dated 12.9.2005, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal because by Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the 1981 Adhiniyam'), Clause 10 of the Letters Patent had been abolished with effect from 1st July 1981. Thereafter, the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short 'the 2005 Adhi...
Ramcharan and ors. Vs. Ram Asrey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP105; 2008(1)MPHT293
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 1993 passed by learned District Judge, Chhatarpur in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/93, whereby the suit of plaintiff has been decreed.2. In brief the suit of plaintiff/respondent is that he is the owner of house No. 50 situated in Village Bamhori, Tehsil Loundi and is also possessing the same. The four boundaries of the said house have been mentioned in the map attached to the plaint. Earlier this house was owned and possessed by plaintiff's father. In the said house there is a door facing on the southern side. Later on, there was a partition in the family of plaintiff and the said house has fallen in his share. The door of the said house opens on the southern side and the open land attached to the said door is being used by plaintiff peaceably in his easementary right as way to go to his house. Except the said land (servient heritage) there is no alternative ...
Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya, Vice C ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008BusLR154(NULL)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This revision is directed under Section 115 C.P.C. assailing the orderdated 14.3.2007 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 7B/2006 by which the petitioner's application under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C.read with 151 C.P.C. dated 12.1.2007 was rejected. 2. This order has been assailed by the petitioners on the grounds that inthe tender form, a condition was enumerated that all disputes shall be subject to 'Satna Court' and the respondent by accepting this condition submitted histender which was accepted. Thereafter a dispute arose in respect of the supply of the goods and as per the case of the respondent, goods was supplied as per terms of the supply order while the stand of the petitioners was that it was not in accordance with the supply order. 3. The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC before the trial Court and raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court on the ground that petitio...
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samita Bada Malhara Vs. Yashwant Singh Bundela and a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR188]; (2008)IILLJ105MP; 2008(3)MPHT540
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this appeal preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay-peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellant, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bada Maihara, Chhatarpur, has called in question the legal validity of the order dated June 19, 2007 passed in W.P. No. 2600/2007.2. The facts which are essential to be stated are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed on daily wages on September 1, 1998 as Sahayak Up-Nirikshak and was paid the salary at the rate of Rs. 2163/-. His services were terminated by order dated December 28, 1999. Accordingly, he approached the Labour Court and submitted his statement of claim which was denied by the appellant stating that his services were not satisfactory and his employment was casual in nature for a particular period of time and, therefore, his termination was in accordance with the terms of appointment. It averred that when the services of the respondent No. 1 were discontinued a writ petition was filed b...
Khairunisha and ors. Vs. Subhash @ Punjabi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT259
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants aggrieved by dismissal of their claim petition by the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Multai, District Betul as per award dated 10-10-2005 passed in M.A.C.C. No. 33/04. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the basis that it was a murder committed by use of motor vehicles. There was no causal connection of murder committed with the accident, in the opinion of the Tribunal it was not a case of an accidental murder.2. The claimants preferred claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Mohd. Arif aged 23 years, driver of Tata Mini Truck (MP 28-B/0144). The Mini Truck met with an accident with another truck (MP-05-A/8131) driven by Subhash @ Punjabi Nagle owned by Dayalu and insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. When accident was caused Mohd. Arif driver of the Mini Truck asked Subhash Nagle to make the payment of compensation, as several persons had assembled Subhash Nagle asked...
Mohan Vs. Bherulal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1735
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 5.7.2005 passed by Additional M.A.C.T., Kukshi, District Dhar in Claim Case No. 72 of 2002 whereby the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation on account of injuries sustained by appellant as Rs. 7,750 but dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant failed to prove that respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, hence, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 16.5.2001 when the appellant was coming in a truck bearing registration No. MP 14-B 1110 along with livestock of animals and was travelling for the safety of animals at that time accident occurred. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 was the owner and driver of the offending vehicle while the same was insured with respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the matter was reported with Police Station, Gandhwani. It was alleged th...
Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research and anr. Vs. Dr. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT525; 2008(1)MPLJ211
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. By an order dated 20-5-2006, a Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law to a Larger Bench and this is how the matter is placed before this Full Bench:Whether when the authority directs that a particular period will be treated as dies-non would it ipso facto mean that there would be continuity of service but the period would not be counted towards the pension, or the principles of natural justice are to be followed, as the said act visits the delinquent officer with adverse civil consequence?2. After hearing Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents, we decline to answer the question for reasons which follow.3. The respondent No. 1, Dr. S.C. Dixit while serving in the Regional Medical Research Centre for Tribals, Jabalpur, was served with a memo dated 29-6-1995 under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 alleging that he...
Diljeet Mohan Gorakshkar and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT427
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12-4-2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by the first respondent State of M.P. by which sanction was accorded to the second respondent Collector Hoshangabad to confiscate the property of deceased Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar and also against the consequential orders dated 1-5-2004 (Annexure P-6) and 19-5-2004 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), respectively.2. Petitioner No. 1 is son and the petitioner 2 is widow of one Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar who died on 26-2-1994 at Mumbai (Maharashtra). The deceased Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar had purchased a bungalow constructed on Nuzul Plot No. 14 Sheet No. 20 admeasuring 8100 sq. ft., Civil Area at Pachmarhi District Hoshangabad from one Dennis Torry vide registered sale-deed dated 17-4-1984 (Annexure P-l). After the purchase of the said property the same was mutated...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »