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.
Narendra Chauksey Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT194
ORDERDeepak Verma, J.1. In this Pro Bono Publico proceedings, petitioner is praying that the water tank/pond (hereinafter referred to as 'pond') bearing Khasra No. 141 admeasuring 1.42 hectares be allowed to be used by the villagers of Obedullaganj and other neighbouring villages of District Raisen.2. It has been contended by the petitioner that even though this Khasra No. 141, having the pond has not been allotted or leased out to respondent No. 4, but on account of construction having been made by it all around the said pond, accessibility to it by the villagers has become impossible. It has also been submitted that the villagers of the surrounding villages of Mandideep are facing water problems for their day to day need. Similarly, cattle of the said area require water of the pond for their own need, but are deprived due to its land locking.3. In the light of these averments being made in the petition, notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted it...
Haji Mohd. Vs. Ravindra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ31
N.K. Mody, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 1836, 1855, 1856, 2215, 2300, 2349 and 2377 of 2005 as all the claim cases are arising out of one accident and has been disposed of by common award. Apart from this, in all the cases parties are one and the same except the claimant. So far as M.A. Nos. 2215, 2300, 2377 and 2349 of 2005 are concerned, all the appeals are filed by claimants, while M.A. Nos. 1711, 1836, 1855 and 1856 of 2005, are concerned, all the appeals are filed by the owner.2. Short facts of the case are that in a vehicular accident which took place on 20.1.1999 between bus bearing registration No. GJ 8-U 1110 and truck bearing registration No. GJ 17-X 3435 Bhaskarrao, Jayashri, Babulal and Vimlabai died. Their legal representatives filed the claim case wherein it was alleged that the deceased persons were travelling in the bus, at the relevant time which was going from Indore to Ahmedabad. It was alleged that at the relevant time, the offending b...
Naresh Sharma Vs. Commissioner-cum-registrar Co-operative Society and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT208
ORDERRajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the order, Annexure P-1, dated 16th March, 2007 passed by the Commissioner cum Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Registrar') cancelling the entire election to the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Maryadit, Hastinapur, Tehsil Gwalior, petitioner has filed this petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the election programme for conducting the election to the Co-operative Society in question was published under Rule 41 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1962') vide Annexure P-4. The last date for submission of nomination paper was 12th February, 2007, the nomination papers were to be scrutinized on 13th February, 2007, withdrawal of the nomination was to be done on 14th February, 2007 and the election was to be held on 22nd February, 2007. Thereafter, further election to the Executive Committee for the post of the Presiden...
Smt. Hirakumari Wife of Thakur Jaipal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPLJ49
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference made initially by a learned single Judge and thereafter by a Division Bench by orders dated 28.1.1997 and 4.4.1997 respectively passed in this case for considering the correctness of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Board of Revenue : AIR1983MP111 . 2. The background facts which have led to the reference are that a case under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960) was instituted against the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Pipariya. The Competent Authority published a draft statement in the said ceiling case and the petitioners raised objections with regard to Survey Nos. 76/1 and 239/4 contending that there were big trees standing on the land and that the land was not agricultural land and cannot be declared surplus under the Act of 1960. After spot inspection, the Competent Authority found the land to be agricultural ...
Durga Prasad and ors. Vs. Laxminarayan Deceased Through L.Rs.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT233
S.K. Seth, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal in an eviction suit. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:Have both the Courts below erred in not allowing withdrawal of the suit on application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure when actually cause of action arises month to month in a case between the landlord and tenant for eviction ?2. Facts which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as under:Undisputedly, this is second round of litigation between the landlord and the tenant. The suit accommodation is a room let out to the appellant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The respondent had filed a suit for eviction of the appellant somewhere in the year 1964 and it was registered as Civil Suit No. 98-A/1964. The eviction was sought besides other grounds on the ground covered under Section 12(1)(f) of the MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In second appeal, this Court...
Kamal Singh Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT371
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 427 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') praying for a direction that sentence passed against him in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1986, by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, to run concurrent with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 1995 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad.2. In Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1986 petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years by order dated 26-4-1989. Appeal preferred by him against the saidjudgment was registered before the High Court as Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 1989. This appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 7-3-2000. His sentence of imprisonment was reduced to four and a half years, but in addition he was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) by way of compensati...
M.P. Food Products Ltd. Vs. M.P. Agro Industries Development Corporati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR224(MP)
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the lessee aggrieved by judgment dated 20.11.2003 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in the case-RSC No. 97-A/01.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 22.11.1985 the appellant firm-M.P. Food Products Ltd. entered into a lease agreement with the M.P. Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The Corporation had floated tender for leasing out its Canning Unit at Bhopal. The offer made by the appellant to obtain it on the rent of Rs. 6,663.33 per month, was accepted. Initially the period of lease was 5 years, on 01.04.1986 the possession was given. The rent was not paid and certain disputes were raised by the appellant. One after the other six arbitrators were appointed. First three arbitrators had to be changed, fourth arbitrator Shri S.S. Sharma submitted resignation after recording of the evidence. Fifth ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Madhu Bai Lodha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: [2009]316ITR338(MP); (2007)213TTJ(NULL)496
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This appeal as also the connected appeals are being decided by this common order as they raise the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal committed an illegality in not deciding the appeal on merits merely on account of the fact that the tax effect was less than Rs. 2,00,000 in which case the CBDT had issued instructions to the Department, not to file appeals ?2. By Circular dt. 24th Oct., 2005 (2005) 198 CTR (St) 41 the CBDT laid down certain monetary limits to emphasise upon the Department that if the tax effect of the case was below the monetary limits prescribed in Clause 2 of the said circular, the Department should not file any appeal. An exception was, however, carved out in the cases covered by para 3 of the said circular, which reads as under:3. This Board has also decided that cases, where the question of law involved or raised in appeal is/are of recurring nature to be decided by the Court, should be separately considered on me...
Prof. A.D.N. Bajpai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT463; 2008(1)MPLJ401
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner joined as 'Kulpati' (Vice Chancellor) of Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalay (hereinafter referred to as 'APS University' for brevity) on 15-9-2003 for a period of four years. Hon'ble Governor of State of Madhya Pradesh in the capacity of 'Kuladhipati' (Chancellor) of the APS University constituted a Committee for making enquiry with respect to various allegations relating to administrative, financial and academic irregularities against the petitioner. It was found prima facie that further enquiry was required against the petitioner within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of M.P. Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'University Act' for short). Accordingly, an order was passed on 23-9-2006 by the 'Kuladhipati' to make an enquiry in public interest vide Annexure A-l. Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to prove his case before the enquiry committee. The Committee lev...
Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Bamba Vs. Smt. Jasbir Kaur Wadhwa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT238
S.S. Jha, J.1. This revision is referred to the larger bench by learned Single Judge by order dated 11.11.2006 to determine the following question:Whether the application under section 23-C of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, supported by an affidavit stating the grounds on which a tenant seeks to contest the application for eviction, on being granted, would itself serve the purpose of written statement and no opportunity of separate written statement in additional manner is contemplated in such a situation under Chapter III-A?2. Question involved in this case is that after grant of leave whether defendant can be permitted to file written statement or application for grant of leave supported by the affidavit is sufficient and no further opportunity to file written statement should be granted? 3. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (herein after referred to as 'the Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »