Madhya Pradesh Court May 2008 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.
In Ref. Vs. Suresh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT547
Arun Mishra, J.1. The reference has been made by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad under Section 366(1) of the Cr.PC for referring the death sentence imposed upon the accused namely Suresh and Mukesh as per judgment dated 22nd May, 2007 passed in Session Trial No. 301/2006 for commission of murder of Roop Singh and Shivpyari Bai on 5-6-2006. The appeal has also been preferred by the accused persons as against the impugned judgment whereby convicting them for commission of offence under Section 302,302/34 of the IPC.2. Briefly stated prosecution case is that on 5-6-2006 at about 6.30 p.m. the accused persons committed murder of Roop Singh and Shivpyari Bai as they suspected them of practicing witchcraft resulting into death of brother of accused persons namely, Guddu. The report was lodged by Karan Singh at 7.30 p.m. at Police Station Babai, which was recorded as merg intimation (P-15). Investigation was set in. Accused Suresh was armed with knife while accused Mukesh was armed with a...
Brajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. C.E.O., Zila Panchayat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT496
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition with regard to following reliefs:(a) That, the direction be issued to the respondents to make the payment of Honorarium to the petitioner @ Rs. 2500/- per month as per Government Circular (Annexure P-1) and also direction be given to pay the difference of Honorarium with effect from 1st July, 2003.(b) That direction be given to the respondents to make the payment of Honorarium from 22-10-1999 to June, 2002 @ Rs. 1000/- per month which has not been paid to the petitioner.(c) That, direction be given to make payment as per prevailing revised rate along with all arrears.(d) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may kindly be granted.2. The State Government issued a policy with regard to Education Guarantee for all students in the State of M.P. The aforesaid policy has been named as M.P. Education Guarantee Scheme (Annexure P-2). As per aforesaid policy, there will be a Centre named as EGS Centre where within one...
Jyoti Markam Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2008
Reported in: AIR2008MP197
Dipak Misra, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Rules 1.8 and 1.20(9) of M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2008 (in short 'the Rules').2. As far as the Rule 1.8 is concerned this Court in Animesh Gupta v. State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P. No. 3795/2008 and other connected matters) has held as under:10. First we shall deal with the validity of the Rule 1.8. The said Rule reads as under:1.8 Reservation:1.8 (2) The minimum percentage of marks in Pre P. G. Entrance Examination for eligibility for admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Courses shall be 40% for SC/ST/OBC candidates and 50% for Unreserved category candidates. While preparing the merit list of Non-Service candidates for Medical (MD & MS) Course, the Board shall calculate 50% pro rata of the total marks obtained in MBBS Part-I and Part II and add it to the marks obtained in Pre-PG Entrance examination.Note : The merit list of Non-S...
State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. Hariram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR647]; (2009)ILLJ330MP; 2008(3)MPHT274
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Petitioners have filed the petition challenging the orders Annexure P-1, dated 16-11-2007 and Annexure P-2, dated 17-8-2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Gwalior and Labour Court, Gwalior.2. Initially the respondent-employee filed an application before the Labour Court under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act for his classification on the post of Chowkidar and also challenged the order of termination of service dated 4-7-1995. He pleaded that he had been working on daily wage basis as Chowkidar w.e.f. 1-7-1990. He completed six months satisfactory service and was entitled to be classified on the post of Chowkidar. Contrary to this the department issued a notice dated 4-7-1995 terminating his services which is illegal. The Labour Court vide order dated 10-2-2000 allowed the application of the respondent-employee and quashed the notice dated 4-7-1995 and also ordered classification of the employee from 24-7-1993 on the post of Chowkidar wi...
Sanjay Vishwakarma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT496
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by the 1st ASJ, Satna in S.T. No. 45/97 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for causing murder of his wife Madhu Vishwakarma.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that marriage of accused Sanjay Vishwakarma was performed with Madhu in the year 1985, accused used to drink liquor and beat the deceased. He used to spend whatever money he was earning in drinking. Accused often used to threaten the deceased to kill her. This fact was informed to in-laws by Madhu number of times. On 9-10-96 accused committed murder of his wife. There was ligature marks found around the neck of deceased. The in-laws suspected that Madhu was done away with as such brother of Madhu, Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma (P.W. 1) lodged a Merg intimation at Police Station, Kotwali at about 12.15 P.M. Merg intimation (P-1) was recorded at Crime No. 80/96. Inquest (P-2) was prepared, post-mortem was performed...
Jumana Bai Vs. Mushtaq Ali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT425
ORDERShubhada R. Waghmare, J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner Jumana Bai wife of Mushtaq Ali assailing the order dated 2-11-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kukshi in Criminal Revision No. 49/07 dismissing the order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court.2. Brief facts as alleged are that the petitioner Jumana Bai has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC before the Trial Court stating that she had married Mushtaq Ali in the year 1986 at Kukshi and that on 13-1-2001 Mushtaq Ali had left the petitioner wife at her parental home. The religious guru and parents of the wife had tried to pacify the respondent husband however, he had abandoned the wife without any reason. Jumana Bai stating that her husband Mushtaq Ali had earning of Rs. 10,000/- per month claimed Rs. 3,000/- as monthly maintenance.3. Considering the case on its merits and evidence the Trial Court ...
Smt. Jyoti Gupta Vs. Registrar General, High Court of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT13
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The question which arises for decision in this writ petition is whether a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor who has been an Advocate for not less than seven years is eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to the posts of District Judges (Entry Level) in the M.P. Higher Judicial Service.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to twenty posts of District Judges (Entry Level) in the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar. The advertisement stipulated, inter alia, that to be eligible for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment, the candidate must have practiced as an Advocate or Pleader for not less than seven years as on the 1st day of January, 2006. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner who was enrolled as an Advocate in the State Bar Counc...
Manohar Sweets and Manohar Dairy and Restaurants Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(MP)187; [2009]177TAXMAN23(MP)
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of Writ Petn. No. 3252 of 2006, as common question of law and facts is involved in both the aforesaid petitioner.2. For convenience, the facts of Writ Petn. No. 3241 of 2006 are being taken.The petitioner claims to be a registered partnership firm having its principal place of business and office at Jawahar Marg, Indore and was being assessed for the purposes of income-tax at Indore. A notice dt. 1st Nov., 1993 (Annex. P-1) was issued to the petitioner by the CIT, Bhopal invoking the powers conferred under the provisions of Section 127(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') for transfer of petitioner's cases from Indore to Bhopal Circle of the IT Department. Petitioner objected to the aforesaid notice (Annex. P-1) by its letter dt. 19th Nov., 1993 (Annex. PA-1) and dt. 13th Dec, 1993 (Annex. P-1C). After receipt of petitioner's letters objecting the proposed transfer of cases, no action was taken by the Revenue and ...
Mahesh Jatav Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT260
ORDERB.M. Gupta, J.1. This petition is filed by the complainant Majesh Jatav for impugning the order dated 28th November, 2007 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Gwalior, whereby the learned Judge before whom the case was committed after filing of the charge-sheet against respondents No. 2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 302,395,396,376 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of The Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1981) and also 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989), has framed charge against all the respondents 2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 along with offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. In addition to that against respondent No. 2 Ravi @ Thakurdas charge for the offence punishable under S...
Arora Distilleries Private Ltd. Vs. Vijay Associates and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT281
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. This revision is for impugning the order dated 1st March, 2004, passed by Session Judge, Vidisha, in Criminal Revision No. 89/03, whereby the learned Judge has modified the order dated 24th April, 2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 444/02, framing of the charge against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC only, while the complaint was filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alongwith Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. While modifying the order, the learned Judge has observed that no charge under Section 420 of IPC and Section 138 of the Act is made out and only a charge under Section 406 of IPC is made out.2. 2(A). The facts which are not disputed by the parties in brief are, that one complaint dated 28-4-93 has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the offence punishable under Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »