Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
State of Madhya Pradesh Through Sho Vs. Mohan, Son of Mishri Lal,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4571; 2009(3)MPHT238
R.C. Mishra, J.1. The State is in appeal against acquittal of all the respondents in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 and in the alternative of 302 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The corresponding judgment passed on 09.11.1992 by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No. 207/1991 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. The prosecution case, in short, may be stated thus:(i) At the relevant point of time, Ramesh (since deceased) and respondents were residing in Village Chhoti Harda falling within the local jurisdiction of Police Station Harda. However, their relations were strained as they were the supporters of the rival political groups in the Panchayat Elections held in the year 1990 and also in the Lok Shaba Elections. Against this backdrop, counter cases were registered against the members of these rival groups on 28.03.1991.(ii) On 22.06.1991, Ramesh along with his elder brother Har Narayan (PW1)...
M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs. Electricity Consum ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP194; 2009(4)MPHT495
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant-Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6-2-2009, passed by learned single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 147/2009 (Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. v. Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Anr.) whereunder the petition filed by the present appellant challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 20-12-2008, passed by Electricity Consumer Forum Grievances Redressal Forum in Complaint Case No. W0045608 (Order No. 507/ ECGRF/Indore/08), has been rejected, has filed this appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchacha Nyayalay (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the petitioner-appellant is a successor-in-interest of M. P. Electricity Board. From the records it appears that on 6th February, 1991, erstwhile Electricity, Board entered into a High Tension Agreeme...
Godrej Beverages and Foods Limited Vs. Ramashankar Yadav and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ836MP; 2009(3)MPHT251
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in the bunch of writ petitions is whether the food processing industry falls within the ambit of entry 'engineering industry' as provided in Entry 16 of Schedule of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Respondent employees have filed applications under the Act, they were appointed in the petitioner industry, their services were ultimately terminated vide order dated 25-11-1992. It was submitted that their services were illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice of lay-off was illegal, there was no reason to resort to the lay-off. The employer wanted to obtain work from the contractor as such lay off was resorted to.3. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the industry that the provisions of the Act of 1960 was not applicable to it, it could not be termed to be engineering industry, it was involved in the food processin...
VipIn Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT473
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 26-2-2009 passed by Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1092/2008 (s).2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/writ petitioner is the husband of late Smt. Vimla Devi Saxena, who was appointed as a teacher on 2-8-1972. According to the appellant, at the time of appointment date of birth of his wife was recorded as 5-2-1942 in the service record and she was retired in the month of February, 2004 on attaining the age of 62 years, which is the age of superannuation in cases of teachers. She died on 15-5-2004.3. The present appellant had filed a writ petition, i.e., W.P. No. 1092/2008 praying therein that his wife's retiral dues be released to him alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum taking into account the date of birth of his wife as 5-2-1943. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench, hence this appeal.4. Counsel for the appellant pointed out tha...
In Re: Va Tech Hydro India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: [2009]94SCL317(MP)
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 391, read with Sections 392, 393 and 394 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rules 9 and 79 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Prayer made in this application is to grant sanction to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation and Arrangement from the effective date and with effect from the appointed day as notified and defined in the Scheme, as a going concern in accordance to the terms and conditions set forth in the Scheme.The Scheme in question, approval of which is sought for is filed as Annexure P/1 and is available at Pages 39 to 74, of the petition.2. Facts in brief, necessary for disposal of this petition, are that M/s. VA Tech Hydro India Private Limited is first petitioner and the transferee-company was originally incorporated as CG Elin Power Systems Private Limited in the State of Madhya Pradesh with effect from 28-11-1996. Subsequen...
Vimal Mishra Vs. Krishna Gopal Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT415
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Appellant/non-applicant has filed this appeal against the order dated 8-3-2002, passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Probate Case No. 7/2000. Applicant filed an application for probate under Sections 218 and 254 of the Indian Succession Act. He pleaded that his uncle Chhotelal Sharma executed a 'Will' on 16-3-1995 and by the aforesaid 'Will' he had bequeathed admeasuring 1.89 hectare of land situated at Village Kota, Pargana and District Shivpuri in favour of the applicant because the applicant had been living with his uncle. It is an admitted fact that the non-applicant is the daughter of the deceased. Non-applicant resisted the claim of the applicant. She further stated that her father has not executed any 'Will' in favour of the applicant. The said 'Will' (Exh. P-1) is a forged one. After considering the evidence on record of the case, the Trial Court granted probate in favour of the applicant by holding that 'Will' executed in favour of the...
Omprakash Vs. Krishnalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT106
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 5-12-2008 passed by First Additional District Judge, Khargone in Regular Civil Appeal No. 7-B/2008 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9-5-2008 passed by Civil Judge Class II in Civil Suit No. 2-B/06.2. On 6-1-2006 the applicant/plaintiff filed a suit against the non-applicant/defendant for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- with interest on the basis of Kararnama' dated 10-12-2002 (Exh. P-1) executed between the plaintiff and the defendant.3. As per the plaint averments and the condition of the Kararnama (Exh. P-1) amount of Rs. 20,000/- was lent by the plaintiff to the defendant for his personal needs for a period of one year and the amount was to be repaid with interest @ 24% per annum by the defendant within one year. However, as the amount was not repaid by the defendant in spite of demand, the suit as aforesaid was filed...
S.C. Agrawal and Brothers Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT507
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents to refund the amount of Commercial Tax unauthorizedly collected/recovered from the petitioner amounting to more than Rs. 12,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of refund made by the respondent Board or State Tax Department till its payment to the petitioner.2. The facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of purchase of mill reject coal from Satpura Thermal Power Station which is run by M.P. State Electricity Board and other units. According to the petitioner it is state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is stated in the petition that the electricity is being generated and transmitted and the coal is one of the main ingredients. The coal is being purchased by the Board for its Thermal Power Station, Sarni from ...
Mukund Lal and anr. Vs. Ghanshyam and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT265
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2, Mukundlal and Bhagwan Charan have filed the instant writ petition aggrieved by order dated 12-4-2007 by which the counter-claim filed by defendant Nos. 3 to 11 has been allowed.2. In the plaint the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have prayed that the disputed property is Joint Hindu Family property of plaintiffs & defendant Nos. 1 to 11. The plaintiffs are also having title and possession. Prayer has been made to declare the sale-deed executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 15 and 16 to be illegal and void as against the plaintiffs. Further prayer has been made to declare the order dated 24-9-2005 passed by the Collector, District Chhatarpur to be ineffective. Counter claim has been filed by defendant Nos. 3 to 11 for declaring the sale-deed to be illegal and void as against their interest which has been executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 15 and 16.3. The Trial Court vide order dated...
Prasann Kumar JaIn Vs. Dr. Basant Baman Rao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT478
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant assailing the order passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 26-A/2008, whereby the order dated 3-11-2008 passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 130-A/08, has been set aside and the application of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been allowed.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect to a wall, which is in between the house of plaintiff and defendant (party wall). According to the plaintiff, he is having a house, the description whereof has been given in Para 1 of the plaint. The said house was purchased in Court sale dated 15-4-1956.3. According to Para 2 of the plaint, on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house, the house of defendant is there, which he bought in the Court sale. Further, it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »