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.
Ram Abhilash Shukla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT401; 2009(2)SLJ274(NULL)
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon him by the impugned order dated 27-10-1999 and the order dated 16-3-2000 by which the appeal filed by him against the order of compulsory retirement has been dismissed.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner, a forest guard, was suspended by order dated 3-6-1987 with effect from 4-5-1987 on account of his involvement in an incident which occurred on 24-9-1987 in which one Kedar was shot and killed by Kavi Kant with a 12-bore gun belonging to the petitioner. A criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and the said Kavi Kant and both of them were convicted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the petitioner was also convicted under Section 30 of the Arms Act. Subsequent to his conviction a notice was issued to the pe...
Ram Kishor Saket S/O Pancham Lal Saket Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT461
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 13-06-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, rejecting his regular bail application No. 1013/2006, holding it not maintainable.2. Applicant apprehending arrest in Crime No. 112/2005 registered under Sections 409 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code by Police Station Chandia of district Umariya, moved an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 374/2006. By order dated 12-04-2006, the aforesaid application was allowed. He was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. It was, however, directed that the bail order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. During this period, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the Competent Court, which sh...
State of M.P. Vs. Tidda Alias Sonu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT225
Brij Mohan Gupta, J.1. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal of the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 457/511 and 333 of IPC, dated 11th April, 2008 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar in Sessions Case No. 280/07, this petition has been filed on behalf of the State under Section 378(3) of the Cr.PC for seeking permission to file an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal.2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that Prabhashankar and Gopal Singh both the Police Constables were on Kasha Gashta in the intervening night of 8-9 June, 2007. When they reached near the shop of Vipin Mobiles, they heard some noise. When they reached there, they witnessed that two persons were trying to break open the shutter. One of them pelted stone, by which Prabhashankar sustained grievous injury below his left knee. He fell down. Both unknown persons ran away. Upon hearing the noise, Ravindra Raghuvanshi and Ishwarlal also came on th...
Jaswant Bhai Doshi Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT442
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. This order shall dispose of seven writ petitions being W.P. No. 3185 of 2008, W.P. No. 4818 of 2008, W.P. No. 4837 of 2008, W.P. No. 4389 of 2008, W.P. No. 4881 of 2008, W.P. No. 5027 of 2008 and W.P. No. 5028 of 2008, as the controversy in all these cases is identical and similar arguments have been addressed before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 3185 of 2008.2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Metal Equipment Enterprises and had purchased land bearing Survey No. 176 measuring one acre, situated at Pipliyarao, Tehsil and District Indore, from the original owner Harakchand Naluja Shah through a registered sale-deed dated March 1, 1972. A copy of the aforesaid sale deed has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the present petition.3. After having become the owner of the said land, the petitioner constructed a shed on the said land after getting the plan sanctioned from the Competent Authority of I...
Smt. Godawari Shridhar Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2009MP13; 2008(5)MPHT65
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the notification of auction of a house, Annexure P-1, which was mortgaged with the respondent No. 1-Bank.2. Petitioner is a partner of a firm, named as 'M/s Shridhar Radios'. The firm had been conducting business. In the year 1984 it had been provided facility of cash credit limit by the respondent-Bank and it was extended time to time upto Rs. 35 lakhs.3. As per the petitioner in the month of August, 2005 there was a theft in the shop of the firm amounting to Rs. 6,05,540/-. The theft amount could not be recovered and due to the aforesaid circumstances the firm could not continue its business and on account of this it could not pay cash credit limit which it had encashed from the Bank. Consequently, Bank issued a notice demanding an amount of Rs. 33,85,031/- failing to pay the amount. Naib Tehsildar also issued a revenue recovery certificate of Rs. 30,56,371/- on 12-1-2006. The petitioner firm filed a petition befo...
Chandra Prakash Soni Vs. Dwarka Prasad Soni and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT296
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. Being aggrieved of the order dated 1-8-2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 69-A/2008 by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Narsinghpur the petitioner has preferred present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order the objection raised by the petitioner/defendant in respect of the admissibility of the partition deed on the ground that the same is not registered under Registration Act, 1908 came to be rejected.2. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for declaration of the entitlement of his share in family property on the basis of family partition, the claim is objected to by other brother, i.e., the petitioner. The case of the respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the house property and the immovable property situated at Mouj a Kandeli, Narsinghpur was a Joint Hindu Undivided property and as per family settlement, the respective members were placed in physical possession of their respecti...
Babulal Birla (Dead) Through L.Rs. Smt. Krishna Devi and ors. Vs. Ram ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT139
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Defendants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-2005 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 40-A/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30-4-2004 passed by IX Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 62- A/2002.2. The appeal has been admitted vide order dated 8-9-2005 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment against the defendants is not maintainable in view of the fact that partnership firm to whom accommodation was let is not joined as party?(2) Whether the Courts below have erred in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, when plaintiff has failed to prove his need to the suit accommodation objectively?(3) Whether the findings of the Courts below about the bonafide need of the plaintiff is vitiated for non-consideration of the facts, i.e., age of the plaintiff, his past exp...
Amarchand Bawaria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2009MP121
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Cantonment Board, Jabalpur passed resolution No. 37 prescribing thereby the rates for issue of Information and copies under the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for convenience) which is on record as Annexure P/2. Petitioner has challenged it for want of powers and jurisdiction being violative of the provisions of the said Act and Rules made thereunder.2. Following reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner.(i) That the Hon'ble Court may issue a writ of mandamus by quashing the resolution No. 37 passed by the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur on 20-12-2005 Annexure P/2.(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may also direct the respondent No. 3 to refund the amount taken from other applicants who have applied under Right to Information Act, 2005.(iii) That the Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent No. 3 to intimate the applicants whose amount is to be returned.(iv) That the Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent No. 1 to take disciplinary action ...
Vinod Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1204
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9-4-2008 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur (M.P.) in S.T. No. 73/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for R.I. of seven years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-and R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-respectively. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo six months R.I. on each count. However, the substantive jail sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated that prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 18-4-2007 in the noon at 2.00 p.m. prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, was asked by acquitted co-accused Sunita that appellant will marry with her and took her to bus stand, Garoth. Prosecutrix boarded the bus and travelled up to Bhanpura. Prosecutrix was told by Sunita that appellant will meet her on Bhanpura bus stand and she may go with him. Sunita paid the ...
B.N. Verma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT296
R.S. Garg, J.1. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ appeal are that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4-7-1995 and much before that, i.e., on 21-6-1995 he was placed under suspension. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations made and charges levelled against the petitioner. It also appears that another charge-sheet was again issued to the petitioner on 15-4-1997 (Annexure A-3/1) alleging inter alia that while functioning as Superintendent, Bapu Vimukt Jati Ashram, Raisen the petitioner defalcated scholarship amount of Rs. 13,500/- which was to be released in favour of 45 resident students. After considering the reply of the petitioner dated 9-5-1997 (in relation to the second charge-sheet) a Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. After recording the evidence the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Collector, Raisen, the Appointing Authority issued notice to the petitioner along w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »