Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Chandu Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT467
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. Arguments heard.2. After being arrested in connection with Crime No. 578/98 registered at Kotwali, Damoh (M.P.) in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 209, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the applicant is injudicial custody. The corresponding trial is pending as ST No. 64/99 in the Court of IV ASJ, Damoh.3. This is a repeat application for grant of bail. The earlier one was dismissed on merits vide order dated 25-3-2008 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11557/07. However, as observed in the order dated 16-7-2008, the applicant has been able to secure his release on bail for a period of 30 days by suppressing the factum of rejection of his bail application on merits by this Court.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has strenuously contended that he is entitled to bail as he has not misused the liberty granted by the Trial Court by way of the order dated 20-5-2008.5. The contentions is, apparently, mis-co...
Nanhe Bhai Raikwar Vs. District and Sessions Judge and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1067]; 2008(5)MPHT133
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the legal validity of order dated 4-10-1997 by which a punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him as well as orders dated 22-1-1999 and 19-11-1999 by which the appeal filed by him and review application filed by him were dismissed.2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was working as a peon in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Damoh and at the relevant time was posted at Hata. On 3-7-1997, Civil Judge, Class II, Hata made a written complaint in respect of the conduct of the petitioner to the District & Sessions Judge, Damoh alleging that the petitioner was in the habit of refusing orders, misbehaving and remaining absent from his duties. Pursuant to the complaint a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 7-7-1997 and a departmental enquiry was instituted against him. On 27-9-1997, the Civil Judge, Class II, Hata submitted a written app...
H.R. Kaurav Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT22
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Sub Inspector, has filed this petition praying for quashing of the charge-sheet issued to him on 26-11-1990 and for a further direction to the respondents not to proceed further in the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was already being prosecuted for the same charges before the Competent Criminal Court in Sessions Trial No. 82/1992 pending before the First Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mandla. It is relevant to state that the petitioner had initially filed this petition before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and by interim order dated 11-9-1996 further proceedings in the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner were stayed. The interim stay, granted by the Tribunal, continues till date.2. During the pendency of the petition the petitioner has filed an application for taking documents on record on 1...
Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT99
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner is an organization of farmers, adivasis, labourers, fish workers and other people from the Narmada Valley affected by the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Project on Narmada River and has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation alleging various irregularities and corruption in implementation of measures for resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected persons of the Sardar Sarovar Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has prayed for an investigation into the allegations by an independent agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).2. The facts briefly are that the Sardar Sarovar Project is an Interstate Project involving the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan and to resolve the disputes between these States, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') was set up in the year 1969 under the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956. In year 1979, the Tribunal ma...
Siyawati Vs. Phoolwati and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT301
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Respondent No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sagouni on 19-1-2005. An election petition was preferred by the present petitioner on the ground that the last child of respondent No. 1 was born on 27-8-2001 and the respondent No. 1 was thus, disqualified from contesting the election by virtue of Clause (m) (1) of Section 36 of M.P. Gram Panchayat Avam Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Secondly, it is contended that respondent No. 1 had in all 9 children whereas only 5 daughters were disclosed in the affidavit containing declaration under Rule 31 (a) of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. On account of false declaration, it is contended that nomination papers of the petitioner were liable to be rejected. They were wrongly accepted and election of respondent No. 1, is, therefore, liable to be quashed.2. In the return, respondent No. 1 denied the allegation about the birth of last child on 27-8-2001. According to her, last child was born on 5th of December, 20...
Bansal Highway Vs. General Manager, GramIn Sadak Vikas Pradhikaran Par ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT457
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the Court below, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner challenges the order dated 30-11 -06 (Annexure P-5) passed in Civil Suit No. 13-A/06. By this order, the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to pay the Court fee. As a consequence of the same, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rules 11 and 13 have been allowed.2. The aforesaid objection was submitted on the ground that the suit has been filed for declaring the order dated 10-8-06 as illegal and as a consequence of the same, the amount of security which has been deposited by the plaintiff/petitioner for a sum of Rs. 44,75,000/- be refunded. The Trial Court directed that since no Court fee has been paid by the petitioner/plaintiff for the consequential relief, therefore, the Court directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay a...
M.P. Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Virendra Singh Sisodia (D ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR700]
S.C. Sharma, J.1. The petitioners before this Court have filed this present petition challenging the award dated 16.32.1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gwalior and also order dated 19.12.2002 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. It has been contended by the petitioners that the husband of respondent No. 1 has preferred an application under Section 31, 61 and 62 of MPIR Act challenging his retirement dated 4.6.1986 and it was stated therein by the deceased employee that he has been retired, four years prior to his age of retirement. The Labour Court after appreciation of evidence has passed an award holding that the workman was entitled to continue upto 30th April, 1992 and has directed payment of wages from 1.12.1987 to 30.4.1992 against which an appeal was preferred before the/Industrial Court as provided under Section 65 of the M.P. Industrial Relation Act, which has. been dismissed and therefore, the petitioners have filed this pres...
Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT307
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 20-9-2006 by which the concerned authority, in exercise of its power of review under Rule 29 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1966') has reviewed the order dated 7-5-1987 by which the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service and converted it into an order of termination.2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner, who was appointed on 16-5-1955 as an Assistant Teacher, was proceeded with departmentally in the year 1985 which ultimately culminated in passing of an order of punishment on 7-5-1987 by imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement. The aforesaid punishment was imposed upon the petitioner as the allegations of producing a false certificate regarding his qualification were found to be established against him. The authority while imposing the afores...
Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: [2009]313ITR384(MP)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee in respect of the following question of law:Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I was not available on interest received on short-term deposit of money, on investment in IDBI and on security deposit with M.P.E.B. for supply of H.T. electricity.2. We have heard Mr. Sandesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant-assessee and Mr. Sanjai Lal, learned Counsel for the respondent-Revenue.3. Mr. Sandesh Jain, learned Counsel for the assessee-applicant, submitted that he has instructions to withdraw the reference. He has commended us to the decision rendered in Gajadhar Prasad Nathu Lal v. CWT : [1970]76ITR615(MP) , wherein the learned Chief Justice, speaking for the court after referring to the decision rendered in M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax : [1955]27ITR188(Cal) , Arise...
Ashok Narayan Kale Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT432
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner, who was a candidate for one of the 34 posts of Civil Judge Class II reserved for Scheduled Tribes has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging his non-selection for the post of Civil Judge, Class II reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (for the 'M.P.P.S.C.') issued an advertisement for the recruitment of Civil Judges, Class II on 30-8-2001. The advertisement was corrected by a subsequent advertisement dated 24-10-2001 of the M.P.P.S.C. Under the corrected advertisement, out of the total posts of 190, 34 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied and thereafter appeared in the written examination with Roll No. 204970 and, on the basis of results of the written examination declared on 24-11-2002, was called for interview. After the interview, the M.P.P.S.C. select...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »