Madhya Pradesh Court January 2009 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. Geeta Mishra and anr. Vs. Krishna Mohan Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT64
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. The challenge put forth in the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to an order dated 15-5-2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Rewa, whereby the Trial Court while entertaining an application under Order 26 Rule 10-A, Code of Civil Procedure in a proceeding under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 initiated at the instance of the respondent husband, allowed the conduction of DNA test of the child, Pankaj Kumar, petitioner No. 2.2. The petitioner wife questions the order on the anvil that, the same, besides being at a premature stage also tantamount to collection of evidence regarding paternity of the child which otherwise is to be rebutted Dy leading evidence by the respondent husband. The facts on which the objection is being raised is that the respondent husband has set up his case of divorce on the ground of desertion alleging that the petitioner wife after marriage in the year 1987 lived with the r...
Baje @ Bajesingh S/O Shri Mangilal Vs. Ayub Karim and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR514]; 2009(2)MPHT336
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. This appeal is directed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 21-8-2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court Dewas (for short 'the Commissioner') in Case No. 6/WCNF/2001.2. The appellant claimant filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Act (for short 'Act') seeking compensation from the respondents for injury resulted in amputation of his left hand below elbow sustained on 27-3-2000 by him arising out of and during the course of his employment. According to the claim petition, the appellant while working as Labourer on Thresher Machine of respondents sustained grievous injuries and as a result of which, his left hand below elbow was amputated. He, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with penalty from the respondents.3. The respondents resisted the claim petition and stated that the appellant was employed as a Chowkidar and he was not supposed to work o...
Dr. Arvind Vs. Mannalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT197
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.With the consent heard finally.1. Both these appeals have been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC') against the common judgment and decree dated 22-1-2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Neemuch in Regular First Appeal Nos. 10-A and 11-A/2007. As the question of facts and law involved in both the appeals are common, they are being decided by this common order.2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 86-A/2005 for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering into his possession on the part of the plot admeasuring 60 x 40 square feet situated at Village Antri Bujurg, Tehsil Manasa. According to the plaintiff he being owner and in possession of the said plot, the respondent has no right to restrain him from raising construction over it and to forcibly dispossess him by demolishing the construction raised over it.3. The appellant/defendant filed a written sta...
Sanwar Aalam @ Sarware Khan Vs. Arun Kumar Chog and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT374
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. With consent heard finally.2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the award dated 23-8-07 passed by the Xth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 219/06 by which the appellant/claimants claim petition has been dismissed.3. Briefly stated, on 28-5-06 at about 12:45 p.m. the appellant who was workingwith respondent No. 1 was sitting on a large piece of stone near M.R. 10 railway crossing gate. At that time a Dumber bearing registration No. CPO-7967 driven by the second respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent dashed the said stone on which the appellant was sitting. As a result the stone fell on the appellant causing grievous injuries to him. He was immediately taken to Bhandari Hospital for treatment. According to the appellant due to the said accident his spinal cord suffered grievous injury and his lower pa...
Jitendra Yadav and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP92
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioners are residents of Jabalpur Cantonment area and have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a declaration that public notice dated 11th December, 2008 issued by the President, Cantonment Board, Jabalpur, notifying the date of polling for Jabalpur Cantonment Board election as 18th January, 2009 is illegal and further praying for a direction to the respondents to issue fresh election notice as per law.2. The relevant facts very briefly are that by notification dated 10th September, 2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'), 9th November 2008 was fixed as the date on which the elections to the Cantonment Boards of Jabalpur, Saugor and Mhow shall be held. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, issued another notification dated 3rd October, 2008 under Sub-section...
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and anr. Vs. K.V. Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT256
Ajit Singh, J.1. This appeal, under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 17-1-2006 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4122/1993 by the learned Single Judge whereby the penalty of dismissal from service of respondent has been quashed with a direction to the appellants to reinstate him with full back wages.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant No. 1 is the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (in short, 'the Board') and appellant No. 2 is its Chairman. On 7-4-1981 a contract was given by the Board to one S.K. Pathak for the construction of 10 HIG and 20 MIG houses near Parijat Hotel in Satna town. Initially, the period of contract was for one year which was extended from time to time up to 15-3-1985. The respondent, who was working as Executive Engineer in the Board, was posted in Satna Division from 10-5-1982 to 29-6-1985. It is not in dispute that he supervise...
Azmatullah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT122
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. The petitioner-Azmatullah, a resident of Mhow, District Indore, has filed the present petition under, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising a grievance against the Union of India, the President, Returning Officer and Chief Executive Officer etc. of the Cantonment Board, Mhow, in not, allegedly, conducting the elections to Mhow Cantonment Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), in accordance with law.2. The relevant facts.3. Mhow town is a Cantonment as per Section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Under Section 10 of the Act, governance of Mhow Cantonment is done by a Cantonment Board. The Elections of the Cantonment Board are held as per the various provisions of the Act and the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as 'Rules').4. The petitioner pleads that he is a resident of Mhow Cant, living in Ward No. 4 thereof. He has pleaded that he is qualified to become a Member of Cantonment Board, as...
Fatimabi and ors. Vs. Madarsa Talimmul Kuran Trust and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT353
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The defendants have filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing order dated 19-2-2007 in Civil Suit No. 5-A/06 by which the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was rejected. By the same order another application filed by the applicants for cancellation of permission granted to the plaintiffs under Section 80(2) and Section 92 of CPC was also rejected.2. This order has been assailed by the applicants mainly on the ground that the Court below erred in not rejecting the plant of respondents as the proceedings for the same relief were pending before the Registrar, Public Trust and this suit was premature. The applicants submitted that in view of pendency of application before the Registrar, Public Trust, the present suit ought to have been dismissed by the Trial Court but the Trial Court erred in staying the proceedings of the civil suit awaiting decision of the Registrar, Public Trust. Once the respondents inv...
Smt. Phool Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT68
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. The petitioner calls in question the legality of order dated 26-11-2007, 7-1-2008 and 5-3-2008 in this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. By order dated 26-11-2007 the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Manpur, District Umaria in exercise of the power under Section 40 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 disqualified the petitioner for holding any post under Gram Panchayat for next six years. The said order has been upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authority respectively by their orders, dated 7-1-2008 and 5-3-2008. The challenge put-forth by the petitioner is on the anvil that, the order of disqualification has been passed by the Prescribed Authority without adhering to the norms of principles of natural justice.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was elected for the post of Sarpanch for the Gram Panchayat, Mahroi in the year 2004. There were certain complaints lodged against the petitioner in respe...
In Reference Vs. Kailash Nahta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT48
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Vide letter dated 21-5-2007 Shri M.P. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar made a reference to the District and Sessions Judge, Sagar for referring the matter to the High Court so that an appropriate action is taken against the contemner for committing contempt of lawful authority of the Court of Shri MP. Tiwari.2. The matter was referred by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sagar vide his letter dated 6-6-2007 bearing No. 1307/BF/93, to this Court.3. The matter was received in the Registry of this Court. After receiving the said reference, vide proceeding dated 20-11-2007, Registrar (Judicial) considered the reference to be under Section 15(3) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and requested to Hon'ble the Chief Justice that, if approved, the matter may be registered as a Criminal Contempt and be placed before the appropriate Division Bench. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, vide his order dated 26-11-2007 approved the proposal and, accordingly, the matt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »