Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Narmada Bai Lambhate Vs. Shakuntala Idane (Soni)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT222; 2008(1)MPLJ359
S.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal under Section 32 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is by the landlady whose application under Section 39 of the Act was rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA), Indore.2. The facts relevant for the decision lie in a narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the respondent occupied three rooms on the ground floor of the suit house on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. The suit house is situated in Juna Tukoganj, Indore and has been assigned Municipal No. 63-64. According to the appellant, the rooms were allotted to the respondent by virtue of her holding office of profit under the State Government. It was claimed that subsequently, the respondent has been allotted a Govt. accommodation and she is residing there. It was also claimed that the suit accommodation is required by the appellant bonafide for occupation alongwith her family members.3. The application was contested by the respondent. It was al...
Ramesh and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1559
S.L. Kochar, J.1. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in Cr. Appeal No. 1016/2006 and appellant Ramesh s/o Bapulal in Cr. Appeal No. 1284/2006 have challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each respectively, in default of payment of fine on both counts to suffer additional R.I. for one year passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shajapur in ST No. 189/2005 vide judgment dated 8-9-2006.2. It would be appropriate here to mention that the learned trial Court has also passed some strictures against the applicant Kiran Lashkarkar, Town Inspector, Investigating Officer in the aforementioned Sessions Trial and also directed holding of Departmental Enquiry against him. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid Criminal Revision for quashment of the aforesaid order. Thus, both the appeals and the criminal revision arising out of one a...
Santosh Yaduvanshi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT412; 2008(1)MPLJ385
ORDER1. Parties are heard.The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 7-12-2006 is before this Court with a submission that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition.2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant wanted to become member of Jai Durga Prathamik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit, but he was not supplied the membership form and as such he was denied membership. It is also the case of the appellant that he made a representation to the Society for granting him the membership but in the meanwhile the election process started and as his name was not included in the voters list, he had to come to this Court in the writ application challenging the voters list.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant was denied membership and his name was not included in the voters list, he had a right to challenge the voters list, election/election process and as he comes under the clause 'any pe...
Khushendra Borkar and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT416
ORDERA.K. Saxena, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the order impugned.3. It appears that an application for transitory anticipatory bail application has been filed before the Sessions Court and the First Additional Sessions Judge Balaghat after referring two cases, i.e., Sachindra Mahawar and Ors. v. State and Anr. Cr.C.P. (M.P.) 89 : 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 127 and Kailashpati Kedia v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1996 Cr.LR (MP) 107 : 1996 MPLJ 847 and found that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction in such type of matters and only the High Court has jurisdiction and because of that he rejected the application. I considered both the cases and found that it is nowhere decided in these cases, that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to grant transitory anticipatory bail in whose jurisdiction, the person apprehends his arrest and his case has been registered in another State. In the case of Kailashpati Kedia (supra), the point referred to Larger Bench was that whether any person, residing in lo...
Vijay Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP89; 2008(1)MPLJ498
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Petitioner is a handicapped person who 'was allotted a P. C. O. Centre, (reserved for handicapped persons) by the Additional Commercial Manager Central Railway, Bhopal. An agreement was duly executed between the petitioner and respondents which is marked as annexure P/2. The Railway Administration asked the TDN BSNL, Itarsi to make arrangement of two telephone lines and one additional line (for facts) on the STD/PCO booth allotted to the petitioner vide its letter dated 8-1-2003 contained in Annexure P/3.2. A complaint was received on 16-8-2004 against the petitioner that excess money was charged by him. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation but ultimately deposited an amount of Rs. 200/-vide Annexure P/5 which was imposed upon him as fine. Another complaint was again submitted against the petitioner which was duly replied vide Annexure P/6, however, the reply was not found to be satisfactory and ultimately a fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon the pet...
Sudhir Jha Vs. Smt. Krishna Dangiwala and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT191; 2008(1)MPLJ396
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 9-4-2007 contained in Annexure P-5.2. In a suit for eviction from residential premises, ejectment has been sought in respect of a part of the premises for non-residential need of wife of plaintiff No. 1 which is not permissible in law. For remaining part, ejectment was sought for the residential need of plaintiff No. 2. It is pertinent to note that plaintiff No. 1 was son of plaintiff No. 2.3. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 2 died. An application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed to delete Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the plaint pertaining to the alleged need of wife of plaintiff No. 1 as well as plaintiff No. 2. Instead, a fresh paragraph was sought to be substituted in place of existing Paragraph 7 to the following effect:7. That surviving plaintiff Sudhir Jha is residing on the first floor having one block and th...
Sulochana Bai Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT233; 2008(1)MPLJ339
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce her father-in-law, Kanchhedi Lal.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the requisite facts are that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the missing person, Kanchhedi Lal, who was working in Khamariya Factory. On 26-6-2003 said Kanchhedi Lal left his home for the place of work but thereafter he did not return and, therefore, an information in this regard was given at the Police Station, Ranjhi. On the aforesaid basis, a case being Case No. 50/03 was registered and investigation was commenced. But Kanchhedi Lal has not yet been traced out. Police Station, Ranjhi, vide letter dated 18-8-2004 (Annexure P-l) informed that the search in respect of said Kanchhedi Lal is in progress but so far no positive information has been received in that regard. It is pleaded that Pramod Burman, the husband of the petitioner, and son of the missing person, is suff...
Babulal and ors. Vs. Mahesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2831
N.K. Mody, J.1. Mr. K.K. Koushal, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Manoj Jain, counsel for the respondent No. 2. Heard on merits.2. This is an appeal filed by claimants under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the claimants against an award dated 28.2.2007 passed by Seventeenth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in the Claim Case No. 72 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000 to the claimants for the death of one Shaitanbai, who died in vehicular accident. According to the claimants, i.e., appellants herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent?3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending veh...
Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. Smt. Ramadevi Shivhare and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT83
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenging the order Annexure P-1, dated 13-8-05 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 10-A/04 allowing an application under Order 23 Rule 1, Sub-rule 3(kh), CPC permitting the plaintiffs/respondents to withdraw the suit and granting liberty to file a fresh suit, petitioner has filed this petition.According to Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, the legal question involved in this petition is as to whether the non-joinder of parties in a suit can be a formal defect entitling the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and seeking liberty to file a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule 1, Sub-rule (3), CPC?2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this petition are that plaintiffs/respondents filed the suit in question for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant/the present petitioner with regard to certain open land as detailed in the suit. The injunction and declaration was sought...
Smt. Uma Devi Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP110
Deepak Verma, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, common question posed for adjudication is to the constitutional validity of Rule 158 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In addition to the prayer for striking down the aforesaid Rule being unconstitutional, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 16-9-2005, issued by the Transport Commissioner, mentioning therein that In Tata Vehicles, the seating capacity in Ordinary and Deluxe stage carriage be fixed in accordance with Rule 158 of the aforesaid Rules, as also under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (in short the Central Rules').2. Certain material facts, which need to be adverted to, in the aforesaid petitions, are mentioned hereinabove. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts of aforesaid case as the leading petition:(A) Petitioner herein had purchased a second hand bus bearing Registration No. GJ-19-T-4170 from Rohan Kumar, resident of Surat. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »