Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Atul Bansal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT530
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the demand and recovery of higher fees from him for the MBBS course to which he was admitted, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner appeared in the Pre-Medical Test as a general candidate and secured 991.32 marks out of 1200 marks and was at Serial No. 281 of the merit list. The seats in MBBS course in the Government Medical Colleges were categorised as 'free seats' and 'payment seats'. The fees payable for a free seat was Rs. 35,000/- per annum and the fees payable for a payment seat was Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. The petitioner's case is that as per his position in the merit list, he was entitled to admission in a free seat but instead, he was given admission in payment seat in the G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. The petitioner has therefore prayed for a direction to the respondents to charge only Rs. 35,000/- per annum for the MBBS course from t...
Khanchedilal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT513
R.C. Mishra, J.1. It is one of the oldest appeals pending before this Court for decision. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that, on previous dates of hearing also, the appellant remained un-represented.2. Having gone through the record with reference to the grounds urged in memo of appeal, I am of the view that this appeal can be heard and decided on merits in the light of principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. : 1996CriLJ3491 and reiterated in Dharam Pal v. State of U.P. : 2008CriLJ1016 with the assistance of learned Dy. Govt. Advocate only.3. The appellant stands convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to suffer RI for two and half years. He was tried on the charge of being found in an illegal possession of only 100 gms. of Ganja that is cannabis/hemp within the meaning of Section 2(iii)...
Ramautar Vs. Ram Naresh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT340
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This Second Appeal of defendant was heard and allowed by this Court on 5-7-2007 by dismissing the suit of plaintiff. Against the judgment of this Court, plaintiff (who is respondent No. 1 in this Second Appeal) filed Civil Appeal No. 4768 of 2008 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court dated 5-7-2007 holding that the substantial question of law which was formulated by this Court on 14-7-1987 is not a substantial question of law within the meaning of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 100, CPC. The substantial question of law which was formulated at that time reads thus:Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court?The Supreme Court while deciding the above said appeal and remanding the case of this Court further observed that the High Court may formulate such substantial question of law as in its opinion arises in the matter. This Court after having...
Sudhir Garg Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT471
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Arguments heard.The prayer in the petitions is for quashment of the complaint filed by the respondent/Board against the petitioner under Section 25 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (which shall be referred as the 'Act').2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner wherein it was alleged that the petitioner is the Director of M/s. Kalyan Nav Nirman Limited and the construction being raised by the petitioner without the consent of the Board by which there are possibilities of pollution of domestic/commercial water which is restricted under Section 25 of the Act. It was alleged that the act of petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Act. It was alleged that after taking cognizance the petitioner be convicted. Upon the complaint filed by the respondent the cognizance was taken by the learned Court below and the notices were sent to the petitioner. Against the order whereby the cognizance...
Satguru Cement P. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST14(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (assessee/debtor) seeks to challenge the assessment order dated October 3, 2008 (annexure P6) passed by the assessing officer, i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (R3) in assessment Case Nos. 33 of 2007 and 37 of 2007 under the provisions of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 and M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 for the period from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007.2. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ is whether any case is made out for quashment of impugned assessment orders (annexure P6) in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner (assessee-dealer) with vehemence contended that the impugned assessment made by the assessing officer is prima facie arbitrary, capricious and bad in law. According to him, it is based on certain ex parte reports of investigation conducted by the Central excise authority, ...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Shobha Bai Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT339
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 7-8-2008 passed in W.P. No. 245/08 (Shobha Bai Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors.), allowing the petition filed by the present respondents, are before this Court with a submission that the order passed by the learned Single Judge runs contrary to the provision of Section 23(1-A) and Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').2. The material facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the notification under Section 4 for acquisition of the land of the petitioners was published on 29-10-1969. A declaration under Section 6 was made and ultimately the award passed on 25-11-1985. It was directed that particular amount be paid to the petitioners and land in lieu of the land be also given to the original petitioners. On 6-2-2003 a supplementary award was made determining the amount of compensation for trees, solatium at the rate of 30% and compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act fr...
Sunil Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT297
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention, detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts briefly are that on 3-4-2008 the District Magistrate, Katni, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act passed an order of detention, detaining the petitioner in the Central Jail, Jabalpur. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board and pursuant to the opinion given by the Advisory Board the State Government confirmed the order of detention and directed that the petitioner shall continue to be under detention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention till 2-4-2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing the order of detention.3. Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the detention order has been passed against the petitioner ...
Santosh Sharma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT343
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 26-9-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 6080/2008 of the appellant against the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Hoshangabad under Section 3(2) & (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act').2. The relevant facts briefly are that on 5-1-2008 the District Magistrate, Hoshangabad in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act passed an order detaining the appellant on the request of Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad in his letter dated 29-12-2007. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Advisory Board under Section 11 of the Act and pursuant to report of the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the order of detention on 21-4-2008 directing that the appellant shall remain in detention till 5-3-2009. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Wr...
Priyank Chansoria Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT44
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the vires of some of the provisions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the State of Madhya Pradesh was formed by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') on 1st November, 1956 and an order was issued by the President under the Act notifying the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur as the High Court of the State of Madhya Pradesh with its Principal Seat at Jabalpur. Section 54 of the Act provides that the Rules with regard to the practice and procedure of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur with necessary modifications would apply to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, until the High Court of Madhya Pradesh made rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure. In exercise of its powers under Section 54 of the Act and Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Shrivati (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT217
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. These three appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award dated 18-10-2005, passed in Claim Cases No. 84/05, 101/05 and 102/2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri. Because all the appeals have been filed against the same award and arisen out of the same accident, hence, the appeals have been heard together finally and disposed of by this common order.2. On 2-12-2004, deceased Chandan Singh and other labourers had been coming in a tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 33M/0295 from a quarry lease. They had been sitting in a trolley attached to the aforesaid tractor. In the tractor trolley, stones were transported. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, it became turtle and the trolley attached to the tractor also turned down. Due to the aforesaid accident, labourer, who had been sitting in the trolley, namely, Chandan Singh, Surendra Singh and Shivlal died on the spot. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »