Madhya Pradesh Court December 2009 Judgments
Mukesh Nayak Vs. Brijendra Pratap Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT396
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. This order shall govern disposal of I.A. No. 43/2009, which is an application, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'), seeking rejection of this election petition at the threshold on the following grounds:(i) The petition is lacking in material facts and particulars.(ii) The petition does not disclose any cause of action.(iii) The petition is not supported by any affidavit in Form 25.(iv) The annexures filed along with the petition are not attested or verified as true copies by the petitioner.(v) Material contradictions exist between the contents of verification clause and those of the affidavit filed in support of the pleadings.2. In this petition, election of returned candidate, viz., the respondent to M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 58 Pawai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constituency') has been called in question on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh thete Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT408
Rakesh Saksena, J.1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 12-4-2007, passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal, in Special Case No. 06/2005, convicting him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, on each count respectively.2. Facts of the case are that on 18-2-2002 and before, appellant Ramesh Thete, IAS, was posted as Director, Employment and Training, at Jabalpur. Complainant N.R. Borle was posted as Incharge Principal of the Industrial Training Institute, Betul. It is undisputed that the appellant was a public servant. On 16-2-2002, complainant N.R. Borle made a complaint to Lokayukta that on 1-9-2001 he had withdrawn Rs. 1,72,372/- from the State Bank of India, Branch Betul, for distributing the salary of the employees, but the same could n...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar JaIn Vs. Savitri Devi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT121
ORDERR.S. Garg, Actg. C.J.1. Undisputedly, present petitioner had filed civil suit for declaration of title, cancellation/avoidance of the document and permanent injunction submitting inter alia that the suit document under which, the plaintiff is said to have received a sum of Rs. 1,11,600/- in fact would not bind his interest because, the same was got executed after playing fraud upon the plaintiff. It appears that during pendency of the suit an objection came to be raised by defendant No. 1 that in accordance with the guideline framed by the Collector of Stamps, the property was valued for a sum of Rs. 4,94,500/- and the purchaser was required to pay additional stamp duty and additional registration charges, therefore, the value of the property would be Rs. 4,94,500/-. On the basis of pleading of the parties issue No. 5 was cast by learned Trial Court to the effect that whether the plaintiff had valued the suit properly and had paid appropriate Court fee. After hearing learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Munnalal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT280
ORDERPiyush Mathur, J. 1. This is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 6-12-2006 passed by the Special Judge, Morena, in Sessions Trial No. 03/05, whereby the charges under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13 (1) (c), (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have been framed against the petitioner and an application preferred under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code for calling the additional documents/records has been rejected without examining the necessity of summoning of the record for framing of the charge.2. The Economical Offences Bureau Office of the State of Madhya Pradesh has submitted a charge-sheet against as many as 13 persons in relation to misappropriation of funds of Prathmik Bunkar Sahakari Samiti, Noorabad and Prathmik Bunkar Sahakari Samiti, Dattehara, Morena, where petitioner Munnalal was described to be the President of one of the Society during years 1990-93, when on account of misappropriati...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Bai Vs. Krishna Morari (Dead) Through His L.R.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT300
Abhay M. Naik, J.1. Plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for restoration of possession and mesne profits in respect of piece of land admeasuring 15 ft. x 55 ft. situated at Mohna, District Gwalior. According to the plaintiff, he was owner of the suit land which formed part of a plot admeasuring 80 ft. x 195 ft., which was given to him by one Rao Sultan Singh, the Ex- Zamindar of village through a deed dated 20-3-1945. Since then, the plaintiff was in possession of the land. In the year 1956, he obtained permission for construction of a house on the said land from Gram Panchayat, Mohna and collected building material on it. The original defendant, namely, Nahneram, forcibly encroached upon the land in the year 1965 and constructed a house on it. Defendant did not remove the encroachment despite notice dated 31-3-1965 which forced the plaintiff to institute a suit giving rise to the present appeal. Plaintiff claimed restoration of possession with mesne profits @ Rs. 5 p.m. w.e.f., 1-3-...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Soni Vs. Dr. Surendra Bahre
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT252
ORDERP.K. Jaiswal, J.1. Heard on admission.This is a tenant's appeal under Section 100, CPC challenging the legality and validity of judgment and decree dated 2-7-2009 passed by XIX Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 20-A/2009, confirming the judgment and decree passed by IV Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 246-A/2006 whereby the suit of the respondent was decreed under Section 12(1)(c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').2. Shankar Lal Bahre, father of the respondent had let out the suit accommodation consisting of a shop bearing House No. 1219, Ganjipura Main Road, Jabalpur to the defendant-appellant by creating tenancy in his favour for non-residential purposes and the defendant is using the same by doing business of medical store in the name and style of Vikas Medical Store. The tenancy of the appellant is monthly and starts from the first day of each calendar month and ends with the last date of the same mont...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Purushottam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT259
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the insurer aggrieved by award dated 4-5-2007 passed by MACT, Mandla in Claim Case No. 1/2006. Vide impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- on account of death of Ku. Ranu.2. Insurer has come up in the appeal to assail it's liability to make the payment of compensation on the ground that driver was not holding the valid and effective driving licence as on the date on which accident took place.3. Ms. Amrit Ruprah, learned Counsel appearing for insurer has submitted that driver was holding two kind of licences as on the date of accident, which permitted him to drive two wheelers without gear and four wheeler with gear. At the relevant time, he was driving the two wheeler with gear for which he was not holding the licence as such there was breach of policy.4. The main question for consideration is whether there was breach or substantial breach on the part of the owner/driver so as to exonerate t...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT435
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 46-A/2003 (Old No. 12-A/99) for specific performance of contract to sell the suit property and with the passage of time, it came to be dealt with by the XIXth Additional District Judge, Indore. It is pleaded in the plaint that the parties had entered into a written agreement for sale of the suit property and the total consideration had been paid to the respondent No. 2, the defendant in the suit. After the execution of the agreement, the original had been retained by the said respondent and a plain copy was given to the petitioner. It was set forth that the transaction has been mentioned by the respondent No. 2 in the relevant income tax return. The copy of the plaint has been brought on record as Annexure P-1.2. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he did not dispute the receipt of the amount but denied the fact of any agreement between the parties having been executed. After commencement of recording of the evid...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›