Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Shashibala and ors. Vs. Rajendra Sharma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2744
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appeals have been preferred by the insurer, claimants as well as by the owner aggrieved by award dated 7.10.2006, passed in Claim Case Nos. 14 and 23 of 2005 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa.2. The claimants preferred the claim petitions on account of death of Sanjay Dongre (aged 35 years) and Mahesh Chourey (aged 45 years). Sanjay Dongre and Mahesh Chourey were going on motor cycle (MP 12-F 0830), their motor cycle was dashed by a Tempo Trax (MP 09-S 2639) while Tempo Trax was coming back to Khandwa. Due to the accident injuries were caused to Sanjay Dongre and Mahesh Chourey, both of them succumbed to the injuries. Report of accident was lodged at P.S. Piploud, offence under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Crime No. 314 of 2004. The driver was charge-sheeted. Mahesh Chourey was an assistant teacher in the government school and was working as block coordinator, his salary was Rs. 9,579 per month, his age was claimed to be 42...
Dr. P.G. Najpande Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP55
Dipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner, a septuagenarian, as pro bono publico has preferred this writ petition on the substratum that he is a retired Professor and has been actively involved in social services for past several years and also is the President of Nagrik Upbhogta Sanrakshan Manch, Jabalpur which has been taking up issues on behalf of the general public.2. It is asseverated in the petition that 'Chakkajam' is a method of protest which is adopted by many a political party for various and manifold issues. Because of the aforesaid remonstrance, the major roads of the city especially the crossings are completely blocked for hours together and the demonstrations held by the protestants make life standstill and everything comes to stillstand. It is asserted in the petition that patients who are in critical condition and require immediate medical treatment are not permitted to approach hospitals, school and college going are facing immense difficulty and are not in a position to attend...
Mahavir Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT395
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. This order shall dispose of six writ petitions being W.P. No. 701/2005, W.P. No. 1027/2005, W.P. No. 1028/2005, W.P. No. 1463/2007, W.P. No. 1464/2007 and W.P. No. 1504/2007. Whereas earlier five writ petitions raise a claim with regard to Scheme No. 136, in Writ Petition No. 1504/2007 an identical claim has been raised with regard to Scheme No. 134. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 1464/2007.2. Indore Development Authority, Indore (hereinafter referred as 'IDA'), respondent No. 4, is a 'Town and Country Development Authority' within the meaning of Section 38 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). IDA proposed a town development scheme and in terms of Section 50 of the Act, passed a resolution No. 235, dated October 8, 1993, resolving to declare its intention to prepare a scheme No. 136 in the City of Indore. A copy of the resolution passed by IDA under Section 50(1) of the A...
Shiv Pratap Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT60
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by show-cause notice dated 31-10-2007 issued by respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers of review under Rule 29 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.2. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are two fold, firstly, that the respondent No. 2 has no power or authority to exercise powers of review in respect of the petitioner; and secondly, that the Reviewing Authority has no power to take into consideration the past record of the petitioner as the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner was in respect of specific charges and incidents which occurred on 16-11-2005 and 25-5-2005 and on this basis it is submitted that the Reviewing Authority has no power to look into the record of the petitioner prior to that period.3. Properly appreciating the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is relevant to take note of the provisions of Rule ...
Thakurlal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT439
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant assails the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 8-8-2001 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar in Sessions Trial No. 77/2001 by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 7,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the judgment directs the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-.2. The appellant was prosecuted for having voluntarily caused death of his second wife Sunita on the night of 31st December, 2000 at about 9.00 p.m. The marriage of Sunita was solemnized with the accused in the month of April in the year preceding her death while first wife of the accused namely Shakuntala (P.W. 3) was living and a...
M.P. Power Generating Co. Ltd. Vs. Flow More Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT92
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appeal had been preferred by the original plaintiff; Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB), that has been succeeded by M.P. Power Generating Co. Ltd., Jabalpur during the pendency of the appeal. The Judgment and decree dated 9-10-2001 passed by the 12th Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur of dismissal of the suit filed for recovery of Rs. 19,35,410/- has been assailed in the appeal.2. The original plaintiff; MPEB filed suit for recovery of aforesaid amount for which it floated tender notice PRG/SGTPS/T-19 for complete Design, Manufacture, Assembly, Testing at Manufacturer's works, Delivery etc. of equipments and accessories given therein and as indicated in respective tender specification contained therein. The tender specification contained in Section-I; General Conditions of Contract, Tendering conditions, Soil and climatic conditions at site and site facilities available. Section-II contained General specification etc. Technical specification for Vertical Wet pit ...
Smt. Sunita Patel Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT302
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. This order disposes of Writ Petition No. 19078/2006 and Writ Petition No. 18174/2006. Reference has been taken from W.P. No. 18174/2006.2. Petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pondi Khurd, District Katni. The said Gram Panchayat was constituted by 15 Panchas, A no confidence motion was submitted against the petitioner which came up for voting on 15-9-2006. 11 Panchas voted in favour of no confidence motion whereas 3 Panchas voted against it. One vote was declared invalid. Since, the no confidence motion was not passed by 3/4th of the Panchas present in voting, the same was rejected vide Anriexure P-1, dated 15-9-2006. An appeal was preferred against it by respondent No. 3 who was merely a Panch. It has been allowed vide the impugned order Annexure P-3, dated 24-11-2006. The learned Collector, Katni observed that the intention of the voter ought to have been ascertained and the same being ascertainable, the vote held to be invalid by the Presiding O...
Shyam Paranjape Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT479
Rajendra Menon, J.1. Challenging the order Annexure A-2 whereby proposing to recover Rs. 400/- per month from the pay of the petitioner with effect from 1-1-96 and reducing his pay, petitioner has filed this petition.2. Petitioner was employed as a Sub-Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Division Morena since 6-11-95. For having undertaken family planning operation in view of certain circular issued by the State Government vide order dated 24th January, 1999 petitioner was granted two advance increments. However, when the revision of pay fixation took place, grievance of the petitioner is that the benefit of two advance increments is being taken away, his salary is being reduced and the advance increments given is being recovered. Accordingly, challenging the order reducing the pay and ordering recovery, petitioner has filed this petition. It is the case of the petitioner that even when revision of pay scale took place, two advance increments have to be added and pay fixed whic...
Mahesh Matre and ors. Vs. Akhlesh Thakur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT163
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') the legal propriety of the award dated 29-6-2004 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 72/2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Waraseoni (for short 'the Tribunal') is called in question by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants').2. The claimants initiated an action under Section 166 of the Act for grant of compensation of Rs. 7,09,000/- for the death of the deceased, Sitaram, as his legal representatives on the foundation that on 19-9-2003 at about 3 o'clock in the morning the deceased was travelling in a Marshall Jeep bearing registration No. MH-26-C/4930 and when it reached near Dabrapara, Bhilai at G.E. Road a truck bearing registration No. KCG-04/ZC 1395 being rashly and negligently driven by the first respondent dashed against it as a result of which the jeep skidded to certain distance and its three tyres came out due to...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Puran and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT444
A.K. Gohil, J.1. This is State appeal, filed under Section 378 Cr.PC against acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Trial No. 109/84 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307/149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, vide judgment dated 28-2-1995.2. As per prosecution story, complainant Matadin had taken loan of Rs. 100/- and grams weighing 6 Paceri (30 Kg.) from Jagannath Rawat. Jagannath Rawat used to make demand from the complainant. Matadin was not in a position to return back the loan, therefore, he was praying for pardon and thereafter Matadin left the village due to fear of Jagannath and went to Banmore. A month before 13-11-1983 he came back to Village Runipur. At about 4.00 p.m. Jagannath carrying muzzle loaded gun, Puran carrying barchi, Harpal (deceased) carrying lathi, Heera (deceased) carrying lathi and Rajaram carrying farsa in their hand came and demanded money and grams from Matadin. Matadin refused to give. At the same time, Tularam and So...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »