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.
Executive Engineer, M.P. Housing Board and ors. Vs. Shri Kant Mishra a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT162
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The writ petitions were preferred before the Single Bench assailing acquisition of the land at Village, Padara, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa. The land was acquired for the purpose of residential scheme by M.P. Housing Board. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued on 26-9-2005 by the Collector cum Ex-Officio, Dy. Secretary, Govt. of M.P., Revenue Department. The following notification under Section 4(1) was issued:SCHEDULE--------------------------------------------------------------------------Description of land Officer authorized Detail of---------------------------------- under Sub-section publicDistrict Tehsil City/ Approx. (2) 3 of Section 4 purposeVillage area in Hectares--------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rewa Huzur Padara 10.594 Executive Engineer...
Madan Lal Narvariya Vs. Smt. Satya Prakashi Parsedia and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT350
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid writ appeals as they arise out of common order dated 25-01-2008 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5293/07 [2008 (3) M.P.H.T. 264] whereby the learned Writ Court has allowed the writ petition filed by petitioner Shrimati Satya Prakashi Parsedia (respondent No. 1 herein) and quash the order of recall.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 writ petitioner Shrimati Satya Prakashi Parsedia was elected as President of Municipal Council, Dabra, District Gwalior. She was declared elected as the President in the elections held on 20-11-2004. In the Municipal Council, Dabra there are as many as 24 Councilors. Out of said 24 Councilors, it is alleged that 20 Councilors moved an application for recall on 3-11-2007 under Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Act'). Said proposal was accepted by the Collector and was forward...
Het Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT351
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1997 (Balbir Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1999 (Randhir Singh v. State of M.P.).2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-7-1997 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 150/94 convicting appellant Het Singh under Section 302, IPC and other appellants of this appeal and the appellants of connected Criminal Appeal No. 295/97 under Section 302/149, IPC as well as convicting all the appellants of both the appeals under Section 148 and also under Section 324/149, IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the appellants have preferred these two appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. Appellant Randhir Singh has filed separate appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 195/99) against the ...
Asha (Smt.) Vs. Omprakash
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT528
ORDERViney Mittal, J. 1. The record shows that none had appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service on the last date of hearing, i.e., July 31, 2008.2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent today also. The case has been called twice since morning.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner for final disposal.4. Wife is the petitioner before this Court who has felt aggrieved against an order dated January 8, 2008 passed by the Trial Judge, whereby an application filed by her under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC for setting aside an ex parte order dated November 3, 2007 passed by the Trial Court has been rejected and the wife has not been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the husband.5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case.6. It is apparent from the impugned order that the Trial Court has treated the dispute between the parties as an ordinary civil dispute and as such adjudicated the application filed by the pe...
Rakhiya Bai Vs. Conservator of Forest and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT535
ORDERPrakash Shrivastava, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17-3-07 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, affirming the order of the Authorised Officer and the Appellate Authority passed under Section 15 of the M.P. Van Upaj Vyapar (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, in brief 'the 1969 Act'.2. Brief facts are that petitioner Rakhiyabai is the owner of Tractor Trolley No. MP 48 M 1565, which is stated to be purchased after obtaining finance from the Bank. The Tractor Trolley was stopped by the forest officers on 16-12-2003 at 11 p.m. and on inspection it was found to be carrying 40 pieces of teakwood without any transit permit and documents. Indal was driving the tractor.3. The Authorised Officer initiated proceedings for confiscation of the Tractor on the ground of violation of Section 5 (1) of 1969 Act. The statements of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses were recorded and thereafter the Authorised Officer passed the order date...
Rajesh Kumar Banshkar Vs. Malti Parmar (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT391
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J. 1. This petition has been preferred for quashment of Annexures P-5, P-6, P-8 and P-10 by the present petitioner whose election on the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat, Kanjariya was challenged and has been set aside by the impugned order.2. The Collector-cum-Specified Officer, Dindouri vide order (Annexure P-6), dated 17th of January, 2006 directed for recounting in the election petition. On recounting the election petitioner is found to have secured 567 votes as against 562 votes secured by the present petitioner. Accordingly, the election petitioner was declared elected vide Annexure P-8, dated 10-2-2006. Annexure P-10 is the report of recounting. Thus, Annexures P-6, P-8 and P-10 are under challenge in the present writ petition.3. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondents contested the election for the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat Karanjiya District Dindouri Ward No. 9. The election was held on 19-1-2005. Petitioner was found to h...
Ashok and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT234
S.S. Dwivedi, J.1. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Sections 374(2) of Cr.PC feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3-5-2002 passed by X Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in S.T. No. 326/91; whereby appellants have been found guilty under Section 326 of IPC and each of the appellants has been sentenced to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine further ordered to suffer 6 months imprisonment.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 19-9-90 real uncle of the appellants/accused namely Jeevanlal had been murdered by real brother of the complainant in this case by means of some firearm for which the necessary case had been registered against one Raju s/o Havaldar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The dead body of the deceased Jeevanlal was sent for post-mortem examination, due to annoyance with this, incident took place on 19-9-90 on the next day it is alleged that the ...
Ranjeet Khanuja Vs. Harmeet Kaur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT111
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02-08-07, passed by First Additional, Family Court, Indore in case No. 56/07, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance was allowed and a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded as maintenance, present revision petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent who is the wife of petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on 27-03-04 alleging that marriage took place with the petitioner on 19-11-00 out of the wedlock respondent delivered a baby Prachi. It was alleged that respondent is not in a position to maintain herself and her daughter, while the petitioner is in the business and whose earning is more than of Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum. It was prayed that monthly maintenance be awarded. The petition was contested by the petitioner. After hearing of the parties learned Court below allowed the applic...
Mukesh Babulal Patel Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1197
S.L. Kochar, J.1. Since all the aforesaid three appeals arise out of one and the same judgment, therefore, they are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment.2. By this appeal the appellants assail the validity, legality and propriety of the Judgment dated 13-12-2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dewas in S.T. No. 189/2000 whereby this appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case as put forth before the trial Court were that there was a dispute in regard to illicit relation of Rajubai, wife of deceased Motisingh with the appellant Mukesh, therefore, Motisingh used to live with separate with Prathvisingh from Rajubai and son Banti alias Santosh. On 23-8-2000 in the night at 9.30 p.m., Prathvisingh along with his brother deceased Motisingh alias Girish, after closing the shop was returning to their ho...
Arun Vs. Abdul Rashid and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2181
J.K. Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 10.8.2005 passed by learned Third M.A.C.T., Ujjain in Claim Case No. 16 of 2005. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,66,865 with interest to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 22.10.2004.2. Appellant had preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000. According to the appellant compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and deserves enhancement, however, by filing the appeal inadequacy of the compensation has been assailed.3. 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 to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant, none of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »