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.
Jayant Pratap Singh Vs. Director, Technical Education and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP119; 2007(4)MPHT417
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dealt with by the learned Single Judge of this Court who faced with the decision rendered in the case of Ankita Sinha v. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya and Ors. 2006 (1) MPLJ 489 expressed his respectful disagreement with the view opined therein and thereafter proceeded to refer the following two questions of law to be determined by the Larger Bench:(i) Under Rule 2.4.1.1 of the Rules (Annex.P/5), once the criteria has been fixed to pass the qualifying examination with main subjects Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry and the students who have been declared passed in the aforesaid examination by a recognized examination conducted by a recognized institution whether he may be declared as disqualified merely on the ground that individually the main subjects has not been cleared by him? (ii) Whether the respondent who has granted recognition to an institution for the purp...
Pooja Vs. Ramesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2158
N.K. Mody, J. 1. Mr. Hemant Vaishnav, counsel for appellant. Mr. S.V. Dandwate, counsel for the respondent No. 2. Heard on merits. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 27.1.2006 passed by Nineteenth M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 80 of 2005. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,96,965 to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which the appellant sustained in an accident. According to the claimant, i.e., appellant 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 compensation awarded and if so, to what extent?2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for...
Brij Kishore Palod Vs. D.M. Engineering (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT409
ORDER1. This is an application for re-admission of F.A. No. 303/02. Affidavit of party is not filed. The affidavit is sworn before the Oath Commissioner. We are finding in number of cases that Oath Commissioners are administering oath in the cases which are to be filed before the High Court. Under the Oath Commissioner Rules, the Oath Commissioners are appointed for administering oath on affidavit for the Civil Courts Subordinate to High Court.2. Therefore, it is necessary that the Oath Commissioners be intimated that they are appointed to administer oath under the Commissioner of Oath Rules, 1976 for the Civil Court under the superintendence of High Court.3. As prayed by Counsel for appellant, two weeks is granted to file detailed affidavit of the appellant....
Suresh Vyas Vs. Ramchandra Vyas Through L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT78
ORDERP.K. Jaiswal, J.1. Heard.The applicant in this revision application challenging the order dated 10-10-2005 passed by Seventh Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior, in Case No. 188-A/77 2003 E.D.2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 1 filed a suit for partition against the applicant and non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2-1 -1981 passed a preliminary decree for partition in Civil Suit No. 188-A/77. On 3-12-2003, non-applicant No. 1 filed an application before the Trial Court for execution of preliminary decree. It is averred in the application that earlier an application was filed for preparation of final decree. The record of the Trial Court was misplaced and the said application was dismissed in 1997 on account of non-appearance of the non-applicant No. 1 and an application to restore the same was also filed but the Court record has also been destroyed in the incident of fire. The non-applicant filed its reply and opposed the ap...
B.P. Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT410
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3rd July, 1996 (Annexure A-22). By this order the respondents have directed to reduce the pension of the petitioner by 5%. This order has been passed by the respondents in exercise of the power vested with them under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976.2. The petitioner retired from the services of the respondents w.e.f. 31-1-1990. Before retirement of the petitioner, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 16-8-1982 (Annexure A-3). A departmental enquiry against the same was continued and ultimately the respondents passed an order on 12-1- 1990 (Annexure A) permitting the petitioner to retire w.e.f. 31-1-1990. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30th July, 1991 (Annexure A-20).3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is to be seen whether the respondents would have any authority or right to pass an order after expiry of the period of two years from the date...
Nagar Panchayat Vs. Om Prakash Shukla and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1162]; (2008)ILLJ843MP
Abhay Gohil and Sheela Khanna, JJ.1. Heard Appellant advocate. The respondent No. 1 was appointed in 1980 on the post of LDC as daily wager. His services were terminated on July 26, 1982. He challenged the aforesaid order of his termination before the Labour Court. He requested the Government to refer the matter to the Labour Court and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the termination of the respondent No. 1 from service is illegal and therefore directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with full back wages vide Award dated September 24, 1988 passed in Reference Case No. 53/1986. It was specifically directed that the salary which is being paid to other LDC be paid to respondent-employee, who is also working on the post of LDC. This order was challenged by the petitioner-Council in MP. No. 149/1989 before the Division Bench of this Court and vide order dated August 10, 1992 the said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the responde...
Goverdhandas Agrawal Through L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Gopabai Agrrawal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT340; 2008(1)MPLJ425
U.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This judgment shall govern aforesaid both the appeals arising out of the same judgment and decree dated 17-2-1992 passed by First Additional District Judge, to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Original Suit No. 20-A/1985 whereby the suit for partition and separate possession filed by the Gopabai plaintiff, the appellant of F.A. No. 111/92 while the respondent No. 1 of F.A. No. 110/92 against the deceased defendant Goverdhandas the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of F.A. No. 111/92 while the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and respondent No. 3 in F.A. No. 110/92 has been decreed in part for 1/4 share in the disputed house. Hereinafter for brevity said Gopabai and Goverdhandas with his legal representatives are said to be plaintiff and defendant respectively. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree the plaintiff filed the appeal for enhancement of her share in the property from 1/4 to 1/2 while on behalf of the defendant the appeal is preferred for setting...
Choithram Hospital and Research Centre Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2009[15]STR738
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal, filed by Assessee under Section 130 of the Customs Act against an order dated 12-10-04 passed by Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') bearing number 699/04-NR.C/in C/appeal No. 509.03/NB(C).2. In order to appreciate the issue involved which arise out of Customs Act and relates to effect and interpretation of 2 notifications issued under the Customs Act and urged in this appeal, it is necessary to take note of the undisputed facts in brief infra.3. The appellant is a charitable Trust registered as such under the M.P. Public Trust Act. It is running a hospital by and under the name 'Choithram Hospital and Research Centre' at Indore since 1979.4. On 1-3-88, the Central Government issued a notification bearing No. 64/88 (Ann. P-1) under Section 25(1) of Customs Act. By this notification, the Central Government granted exemption from payment of whole customs duty on all equipments, apparatus a...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Jagannath Gupta and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR532]
Abhay Gohil and Sheela Khanna, JJ.1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.Smt. Sarla Gupta was a Government employee. She was working as Lower Division Teacher. She was retired on account of medical disability by the Government. She was paid all the retiral dues and she was also paid the pension. She died on 12.11.1996. Thereafter, her husband Jagannath Gupta claimed family pension under the M.P. Family (Pension) Scheme, 1966 being the husband of the deceased Government employee. lie filed O.A. No. 185/98 which was disposed of by order dated 24.7.2000 and direction was given to the respondents to make payment of family pension to the applicant-husband within a period of three months along with 18% interest and cost of Rs. 500/-, against which, the State has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order passed in OA No. 185/98 by the MP State Administrative Tribunal.2. Shri Vivek Khedker submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the husband of the deceased...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›