Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Smt. Laxmi Sarda Vs. Khushal Chand Khimji and Company and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT428
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. A Summary Suit No. 11879/98 was filed by M/s. Khushal Chand Khimji & Company who has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 in this appeal, before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The said suit was filed under Order XXXVII Rule 2, CPC against M/s Laxmi Narayan Radha Vallabh and Company, a partnership firm and others. An ex parte decree was passed by Bombay High Court on 5-6-2000 against the defendants. In order to realize the decretal amount, execution application was submitted before the High Court of Bombay, however, the decree was transferred to District Judge, Hoshangabad alongwith a certificate under Rule 6 of Order XXI, CPC, by Bombay High Court by exercising powers under Section 39 and Order XXI Rule 5, CPC. Since the judgment-debtor actually resides at Pipariya, the District Judge, Hoshangabad transferred the said decree to Additional District Judge, Sohagpur having pecuniary jurisdiction to execute the decree.2. In the said summary suit, one Ram Gopal K...
Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. Hindustan Copper Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT48
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 4-5-2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Balaghat in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2007 dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff/appellant, this appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908.2. The plaintiff is a lessee of the suit property and has filed a suit before the Trial Court for injunction that plaintiff may not be dispossessed by the defendant from the suit property. According to the plaint averments, the suit property which is open land, was given on lease to the plaintiff on 27-4-1987 for 20 years for construction of bus stand and for other purposes mentioned in the Schedule A annexed to the plaint. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed the bus stand and godown etc. on the leased suit property. According to the plaint averments, the original lessee was Malajkhand Special Area Development Authority (SADA), however, t...
Bhola Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT383
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226/227 of the-Constitution of India is to an order of externment passed by District Magistrate on 2-5-2008 in a Criminal Case No. 3/2007 and the order dated 24-6-2008 by the Divisional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar whereby the order of externment dated 2-5-2008 has been affirmed. The order of externment has been passed in exercise of power under Section 3 (2) and Sections 5 and 6 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (referred to as 'Adhiniyam').2. The brief facts culled out from the pleadings put forth by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a resident of Sukhchain Ward, Tehsil Deori, District Sagar. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice on 2/4-2-2008 under the Adhiniyam as to why an action be not taken against him under the Adhiniyam and be externed from the territorial limits of District Sagar and its surrounding districts. As many as 23 cases were reported to be registered against the pe...
Caparo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST401(MP)
Viney Mittal, J.1. A show-cause/demand notice dated May 23, 200a was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Dewas, to the petitioner-company, requiring the petitioner-company to deposit an amount of Rs. 43,96,144, within three days, failing which, it was made out that proceedings for recovery of the said amount, as arrears of land revenue, shall be initiated. Copy of the said notice has been appended as annexure PI with the petition.2. The petitioner-company filed a detailed reply on May 27, 2008. Various objections/pleas were raised by the petitioner-company. It was also made out that an application for exemption filed by the petitioner-company is pending consideration before the High Level Screening Committee, and since no decision had been taken by the said committee, it was appropriate that proceedings for recovery of the entry tax be deferred. The aforesaid reply filed by the petitioner-company has been appended as annexure P12 with the petition. However, on the same date, i.e., Ma...
In Re: Deepak Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT106
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. This is a suo motu revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').2. The orders in question are passed by Shri P.L. Dinkar, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad with regard to the complaint made by the noticee Deepak Agrawal against Smt. Soniya Gandhi, President, Sanyukta Pragatisheel Gathbandhan, Shri Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, Govt. of India, Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj, Minister, Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India, Sushri Ambika Soni, Minister, Culture and Tourism Ministry, Govt. of India, Shri S.T. Raghwan, Additional Secretary to Ministry of Road, Transport Rajmarg & Shipping Corporation and C. Dor. Ji, Director, Indian Archaeological Survey, New Delhi, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 124-A, 295 and 295-A of the IPC. According to the complainant/noticee, all the six accused persons were involved in a conspiracy in pursuance of which, they had m...
Smt. Rekha Dhurve (Markam) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT284
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner is a Law Graduate and practicing lawyer and belongs to Dhurve Tribe of the State of Madhya Pradesh which is a Scheduled Tribe as per the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. The petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Class II in the State of Madhya Pradesh to the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short 'the MPPSC') and on the basis of her performance in the examination and interview was selected and placed in Serial No. 1 of the supplementary list. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were also selected and placed at Serial Nos. 86 and 92 in the select list. The MPPSC sent its recommendation along with the select list and the supplementary list to the State Government and the State Government initially appointed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the posts of Civil Judge Class II reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates but subsequently cancelled their appointment on the ground that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not belong to...
Rakesh Yadav Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT43
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 22-1-2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No. 85/07, sustaining the objection raised by the Public Prosecutor that a prosecution witness of a case cannot be cross-examined and confronted with confessional part of his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even if confession pertains to some other case.2. In short, facts of the case are that applicant/accused is facing trial for an offence under Section 307/34 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 85/07 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Satna. One Shri Ram Janam Rai is a prosecution witness in the case. There is a counter case also which is Sessions Trial No. 46/2007 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the trial, Shri Ram Janam Rai is an accused. While recording the statement of Ram Janam Rai under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with t...
Anita Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT392
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Pregnability of the order dated 23-11-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16024/2007 (S) is called in question by the appellant invoking the jurisdiction under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.2. The facts which are imperative to be uncurtained are that the fourth respondent herein invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the soundness of the order dated 7-11-2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar giving the stamp of approval to the order dated 29-8-2007 passed by the Collector, Panna who had set aside the selection of the writ petitioner for the post of 'Aganbadi' worker. The present appellant had filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer, Panna regarding the appointment of respondent No. 4 stating, inter alia, that the appointment was against the norms and the rules. It was putforth that the ...
Mohanlal Vs. Kaji VakiluddIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT221
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. The controversy involved in the present petition, W.P. No. 4140 of 2008, and a bunch of other writ petitions, which have been clubbed along with the present petition, is with regard to the interpretation of Article 1-A of Schedule 1 of Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2008.2. At the outset, it would be relevant to notice Article 1-A of Schedule 1 of the aforesaid Act as follows:1-A. Plaint, written When the amount or Twelve percentstatement pleading a value of the subject to aset-off or counterclaim, subject matter in minimum of oneor memorandum of dispute does not hundred rupees.appeal (not otherwise exceed five lacsprovided for in this rupees.Act) presentedto any Civil orRevenue Court except When such Sixty thousandthose mentioned in amount or value rupees plus sevenSection 3 to any exceeds five lacs percent on theCivil or Revenue rupees but does amount or value inCourt except those not exceed ten excess of five lacsmentioned Section 3. lacs rupees. ...
Bhudevi and ors. Vs. Ramjilal Goyal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2422
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation aggrieved by award dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Fifth Additional M.A.C.T. (Fast Track Court), Morena in Claim Case No. 64 of 2004 awarded on account of death of Ram Avtar Sharma aged 42 years who was sub-engineer in the Rural Engineering Service Department of State of M.P.2. The claim application was preferred by the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs. 33,87,000 along with interest. The deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 7,208 at the time of his death. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,13,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum except for the period 26.9.2005 to 29.9.2006. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal the appeal has been preferred.3. It is submitted by Mr. B.D. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for appellants that Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »