Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT233
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.1. Both the writ petitions involve a common question of fact and law, therefore, they are heard together and are disposed of by this singular order.2. The reliefs prayed for and challenge in the present petitions is to the order dated 11-8-2009, Annexure P-1, passed by the Collector, District Balaghat whereby exercising the power under Section 323 of the Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') he has cancelled the tender proceedings dated 16-6-2009. Be it noted, the said tender proceedings were conducted by the petitioner, Nagar Palika Parishad, Balaghat (for brevity 'the Council') pursuant to auction notice dated 21-5-2009, Annexure P-2, for collection of daily and weekly market tax, for Sarekha Bazar, leather market and also for footpath tax. In the proceedings dated 16-6-2009 the tender floated by Raja Chourasia, the petitioner in the connected writ petition, was accepted and later on approved by the Municipal Council in its meeting dated 27-6-2009, Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT137
ORDERPiyush Mathur, J.1. This petition is filed by the accused/petitioners under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the charges, framed against them in relation to the Criminal Case No. 1086/2005, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as also for quashment of order dated 14-7-2006 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Morena in Criminal Revision No. 241/2005, whereby it has dismissed the Criminal Revision by finding the charges to be properly framed against the petitioners.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, demonstrates that a criminal case bearing Crime No. 279/2004 was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Kotwali, Morena, under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC on account of alleged concealment of material information, while obtaining Arms Licence, under the Arms Act.3. The petitioners had applied for the grant of Arms Licence to the District Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT144
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No. 28/01 filed on behalf of Mahila Shakuntala. Indeed, Mahila Shakuntala is also appellant No. 2 in this appeal.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10-11-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 384/99 convicting the appellant No. 1 - Kamlesh under Section 302 of IPC (on two counts) and appellant No. 2 - Shakuntala under Section 201 of IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and three years' RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively, in default of fine, further RI three months, the appellants have knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The admitted facts are that appellant No. 2 Shakuntala is the daughter of Ramesh and Ganeshi Bai (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and appellant No. 1 Kamlesh is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2010)229CTR(MP)268
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern disposal of connected writ petition being Writ Petn. No. 9532 of 2003 because both these writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law and secondly, both are filed by the same petitioner except the difference between the 2 writs is that of assessment years.2. By filing this writ under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner (assessee) seeks to challenge the notice dt. 14th March, 2002 (Annex. P-l) issued by ITO (respondent) under Section 147 of IT Act in respect of asst. yr. 1997-98. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the order dt. 20th Jan., 2003 (Annex. P-2) passed by ITO by which objections raised by petitioner against the issuance of impugned notice have been rejected. Notice of this writ was issued to respondent i.e., IT Department. They have defended the issuance of notice so also overruling of the objections raised by petitioner.3. The petitioner is an assessee. She is doctor by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT200
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Writ petitions have been filed as against order (P-1), dated 3-7-2009 dismissing the application preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to 'Act of 1996'). Under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2006') direction was issued to make the deposit of amount which order was not complied with. Due to non-compliance of the order, ultimately, the main applications under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 were dismissed by the 6th Addl. District Judge, Bhopal in the aforesaid cases, which orders have been impugned in these writ petitions.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that an appeal lies under the provision of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as against an order passed under Section 34(1)(b) of 1996 Act. He has placed rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT239
I.S. Shrivastava, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20-1-2005 passed by Smt. Sunita Yadav, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 147/2003 convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentencing with Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default six months' Rigorous Imprisonment, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 6-6-2003 marriage ceremony of daughter of Ganesh Prasad was being celebrated in Shantinagar Colony, Chhatarpur. Deceased Deendayal was also present there. While deceased Deendayal was sitting with other villagers, Bablu Singh (P.W. 2) and Chintu (P.W. 7) in a tent, at that time the accused persons came in a Jeep at about 10.45 p.m. at the place of incident. Accused Gajendra Singh alighted from the Jeep, he was having 315 bore rifle. Along with him accused Katare Raja, Ravindra Raja and Chhatrapal Singh also aligh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2010]98SCL77(MP)
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Through this Company Petition filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), read with Rules 92 to 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Rules'), the petitioner-company is seeking a direction to the respondent, Registrar of Companies, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to restore its name in the register of the Companies and for passing other incidental and consequential orders and directions including the direction for restoration of rights and liabilities of petitioner-company from the date of 'striking off' its name as if the name of the Company was never struck off from the register of the Companies.2. This Court had issued a notice to the respondent-Registrar of the Companies but in spite of said notice being served, no one has appeared for the respondent-Registrar to oppose the prayer made in this petition.3. Briefly stated, petitioner-company was incorporated on 5-8-1994 under the provisions of the Act as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT383
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25-9-2008 passed by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Cri. Appeal No. 51/2008, whereby judgment dated 25-1-2008 passed by CJM, Ratlam in Cri. Case No. 1336/2007, where the interim application filed by the respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was allowed and the interim directions issued by learned Trial Court were further modified, present petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 have adopted respondent No. 2. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 20-7-87 at Nagpur. Petitioner No. 1 is a retired employee of Railways. Prior to it petitioner No. 1 was married to Nirmalabai from whom petitioner No. 1 was blessed with a son Lalit petitioner No. 2. Divorce took place between the petitioner No. 1 and Nirmalabai on 21-1-87 in H.M.A. Case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)MPHT151
S.A. Naqvi, J.1. Assail is to the judgment dated 5-8-08 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Dacoity Act), Panna in Special Case No. 76/08, whereby the appellant Chirku @ Lakhanlal has been convicted under Section 25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act read with Section 11/13 of M.P. Dacoity Awam Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') and sentenced to 3 years' Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default, one month's Rigorous Imprisonment.2. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that SHO Police Station, Dharampur on intervening night of 21/22-4-08 received secret information that in Village Dharampur one person is roaming possession katta. The information was entered vide Exh. P-8C. R.G. Tiwari, along with police party and panch witnesses reached on the spot. He saw a person running in front of Durgapur School, that man was apprehended by the police. The personal search of the person apprehended was taken. A 315 bore katta containing...
Tag this Judgment!