Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Avinash Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT482
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. Petitioner is an NGO registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Dr. Harish Bhalla, a leading de-addiction expert in India is its Honorary Secretary. The petitioner has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation making a grievance that although tobacco directly and indirectly kills 2,800 people everyday and to prevent such death, Parliament has enacted the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Product (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') the respondents are not enforcing its provisions and as a consequence, the number of deaths on account of smoking of cigarettes has increased substantially. The petitioner has stated that the Central Government has not yet issued a gazette notification prescribing the permissible level of nicotine and tar contents in tobacco products and has also not taken steps for recognizing laboratories for testing the nic...
Smt. Savita Ben Thakur Das Patel and Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2008MP334
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 4969/2008 (Smt. Savita Ben Thakur Das Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.) shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 4972/2008 (Rupesh Thakur Das Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.). Since both these petitions involve a common question of law, they were heard together.2. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of recovery proceedings and notification dated 4-3-2008, Annexure P1. issued by the Tahsildar (respondent No. 3) in respect of proclamation of sale of their immovable property for recovery of dues of the Citizen Co-operative Bank Limited (respondent No. 4) (in short, 'the Bank').3. The petitioners are mother and son. They, for their business, took financial assistance of huge amount from the bank after mortgaging their agricultural land in the form of security against the loan. The petitioners after paying some installments committed default. The Bank, therefore, initiated recovery ...
Prakash Kanthed Vs. Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT215
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2006 passed by ACJM, Khachhrod in Cr.C. No. 1813/05, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 216 of Cr.PC, for framing of additional charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed, present revision petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case that the petitioner filed complaint with Police Station, Nagda to the effect that petitioner is engaged in the business of cereals, oil seeds etc. and carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s Devendra Traders at Nagda. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 M/s Maheshwari Proteins Ltd., Ratlam and its sister concern M/s Marble Agrex Limited were doing business at the relevant time in the year 1996-97 at Ratlam and Mahidpur respectively and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the authorized signatories of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was alleged that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 purchased Soyabean fr...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dilip Bankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ655; 2008(5)MPHT53
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No. 1274 of 2007 (Dilip Bankar v. The State of M.P.) filed on behalf of the accused.2. By exercising the power conferred to it under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this reference has been submitted to this Court by learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 28/2006 for . confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has also convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(f), IPC and has sentenced him to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six months; 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, S.I. for six months and life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- respectively.3. In brief the case of prosecution is that Naina alias Gurmeet (hereinafte...
Smt. Anita Devi Shrivastava and ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4209
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2-9-1997 passed by learned V Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 01/88, convicting the deceased-appellant under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand), in default of payment of fine amount, further R.I. of six months, this appeal has been preferred by him under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. It would be relevant to mention here that Motilal Shrivastava was prosecuted and convicted under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. After conviction, this appeal was preferred by the accused/appellant. During the pendency of this appeal, accused/appellant died on 10th July, 1998 and the present appellants who are his legal representative...
Ms. Shamim Modi Vs. Ms. Sudha Chowdhary, District Collector and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT13
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation to protect the rights of tribals residing in the Tribal Village Ghorpodmal in Bhaisdehi Tehsil in the Mohada forest range in the West Betul Forest Division in the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The petitioner is a Psychology graduate from Jesus and Mary College, Delhi and holds a Master's Degree in Psychology from Lady Ram College, Delhi. She did her M.Phil in Social Science from the Tata Institute of Social Science, Mumbai and graduation in Law from the Barkatullah University, Bhopal and thereafter became a Project Officer of OXFAM (India) Trust, a British Funding Agency in 1991-92. She has stated in the writ petition that while working as Project Officer of OXFAM (India) Trust, she got an opportunity to serve in the tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh and she was shocked to find the pathetic conditions in which the tribals are living and she has therefore formed an organisation of the tribals called the Shramik...
Bondar Vs. Revaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2435
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short called 'the Act') against an award dated 13.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Kukshi, Distt. Dhar in Claim Case No. 5 of 2006. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 1,30,000 for the death of one Kalu. This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement as according to claimants compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side hence it should be enhanced in this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and, if so, to what extent and under what head(s)?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 which caused the accident or who is liable to pay compensation, etc. and whether offending vehicle is insured or n...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Patel and ors.,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT489
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Questioning the faultlessness of the decision rendered in three original applications being O.A. No. 544/2007, O.A. No. 580/2007 and O.A. No. 724/ 2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by a singular order dated 14-12-2007 the Railway Administration and its functionaries have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same. It is apposite to state here that three original applications were preferred by various incumbents assailing the action of the respondents who had cancelled the selection process vide order dated 6-8-2007 (Annexure A-1) to the original application and, therefore, it is seemly to uncurtain and unfold the facts on a common canvass.2. The petitioner No. 2, the Divisional Manager Railways, Jabalpur issued a notification dated 14-12-2007 to fill up 16 posts (15 of general category and 1 ...
Vishnu Vakil Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT110
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. The petitioner a retired Upper Division Clerk from the Public Works Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh, has filed this petition seeking quashment of Revenue Recovery Certificate (for short 'RRC') dated 27-9-2001 (Annexure P-1) issued against him by 4th respondent Tehsildar, Burhanpur for the recovery of Rs. 65,580/-.2. Briefly stated, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-9-91, the petitioner was retired from the Public Works Department. The Executive Engineer deducted a sum of Rs. 68,575.20 paise from the petitioner's GPF account. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 684/93 before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal Bench at Indore (for short 'the Tribunal'). The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal vide dated 8-4-94 and the recovery was set aside observing further that allowing of the O.A. and setting aside the order of recovery will not be a bar for the recovery according to the law and procedure.3. Thereafter, Te...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT112
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Final argument heard. Perused the record.Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-11-2004 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.A. No. 95/2004, whereby the judgment dated 30-9-2002 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Indore in Criminal Case No. 8/96, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 420 of IPC for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, was confirmed, present revision petition has been filed.2. In short the case of the prosecution was that the petitioner was posted as Station Engineer at All India Radio, Gwalior. Petitioner applied for grant of Leave Travel Concession (hereinafter referred to as 'the LTC') on 6-10-94 for going to Kanyakumari alongwith his family. Alongwith the application petitioner submitted the reservation tickets on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 19,176/- were credited to the account of the petitioner. Later on upon a complaint lodged by one Navrang, the matter was investigated by CBI and it w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »