Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Jorawar Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT315
ORDERPrakash Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC challenging the order dated 3-9-03, passed by the Court of Additional Distt. Judge, Ujjain in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 25/03 rejecting the appellant's application for restoration of MJC No. 43/02.2. The brief facts are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the non-appellant No. 1 that suit was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the Counsel for the appellant on 8-4-02. The appellant filed MJC No. 43/02 under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of suit in default but that MJC also came to be dismissed in default on 6-8-02. Consequently, the appellant filed MCC No. 25/03 making a prayer that the order dated 6-8-02 may be recalled and the MJC No. 43/02 filed by him may be restored to its original position and decided on its own merit.3. The Trial Court by the order dated 3-9-03 has dismissed the MCC No. 25/03 filed by the appellant on th...
M.P. Housing Board Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT244
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Itarsi, dated 2-7- 2002 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,89,516/- under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the persons whose lands have been acquired. The petitioner has assailed the legal validity of the award only on the ground that the petitioner was not given a notice or opportunity of hearing as required by the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act and has submitted that in the absence thereof the impugned award stands vitiated.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner had proposed to set up a Housing Society in Itarsi and for that purpose requested for acquisition of 9.126 hectares of land situated in Village Itarsi. Notification under Section 4 dated 15-5-94 and declaration under Section 6 dated 4-6-94 of the Act were published in the Offi...
Praful Kasekar Vs. Airport Authority of India and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT435
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:In view of the facts and grounds mentioned hereinabove petitioner humbly and most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned notice dated 6-9-2007 in its entirety and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner's services/training and further be pleased to direct the respondents to issue the certificate of petitioner's training as per the offer of appointment in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to give the petitioner all the benefits; monetary or others of the said training.Any other relief(s) to which petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.2. The contention of learned Counsel for petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Junior Exec...
Maganlal JaIn Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT187
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. Relevant facts.2. On August 24, 2000, Branch Manager, Dena Bank, respondent No. 2, issued two Revenue Recovery Certificates (RRCs), under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Lok Dhan Adhiniyam'), and were referred to Tehsildar, Ratlam, under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue Code'), for effecting recovery of dues outstanding against one Sunita and Ashok Kumar Jain. Whereas, it was indicated that against Sunita an amount of Rs. 91,955/- was outstanding, Ashok Kumar Jain was shown to be a debtor to the extent of Rs. 2,49,703/-. A demand notice was issued by the Tehsildar, Ratlam, to the aforesaid two persons for the amounts mentioned against them, respectively. However, Ashok Kumar Jain expired on May 7,2001. Even after the death of Ashok Kumar Jain, proceedings for recovery against him and Sunita were continued befor...
Mohd. Ismail Khan Vs. Madhya Pradesh Raod Transport Corporation and an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT348
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by petitioner, Mohd. Ismail Khan, who was erst-while employee of the respondent-Corporation. Initially, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 314/2009 (s) challenging appointment of Inquiry Officer. This Court vide, order dated 23-1-09 passed an interim order directing respondent No. 2 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. However, in spite of operation of stay order of this Court petitioner has been removed from service after enquiry. Hence, the petitioner in subsequent writ petition, W.P. No. 1829/09 (s) challenged his order of dismissal from service.2. Mr. Dilipraj Dwivedi, Deputy Secretary, Department of Transport, was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the case to conduct enquiry and competency to conduct the enquiry by Mr. Dilipraj Dwivedi has been challenged in these writ petitions, hence with the consent of parties, both writ petitions are heard and decided by this common order.3. Petitioner was initia...
Sanjay Mishra Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT359
ORDERIndrani Datta, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 3-7-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sevdha in Case No. 3 of 2009 ST by which, charges under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 324/34 of IPC have been framed against present petitioners.3. As per prosecution case complainant Ajay Mishra is Pujari in Gopurush Mandir, Indergarh, Distt. Datia. On the date of incidence, he was in the temple with his wife Manju. In the evening on 8-4-2008 at about 6 p.m. present petitioner and co-accused reached there and abused him. Present petitioner was armed with luhangi. He caused injury to Aj ay by means of luhangi. Ajay sustained injury in his head, chest, left shoulder, wrist, fingers and left leg. Manju tried to rescue, complainant then co-accused inflicted knife blow on the head of Manju and she suffered injuries on diff...
Manzoor Ahmed Vs. Jaggi Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT347
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Writ petition has been filed as against order dated 25-3-2009 passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that Trial Court was not having pecuniary jurisdiction as well as adequate Court fees was not paid.2. The plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. Prayer has also been made to declare the sale deed dated 20th September, 2007 as null and void. Prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction has also been made.3. Plaintiff has averred that plaintiff is the Bhumiswami of the land in question. Her age is 100 years, she is disabled also. Plaintiff No. 2 is residing with her and looking after agricultural operation. Plaintiff wanted to obtain the loan under the Kisan Credit Scheme for improving fertility of the land. She was assured by the defendants that for performing formalities, she would have to sign certain documen...
Omprakash Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT228
ORDERIndrani Datta, J.1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing criminal proceedings concerning Cr. Case No. 15003 of 2007 pending in the Court of CJM, Gwalior or in alternate for staying proceeding concerning Cr. Case No. 15003 of 2007 till decision of case pending against respondent No. 2 at Firozabad concerning Crime No. 617 of 2007.2. As per petition, respondent No. 2 and co-accused had committed murder of petitioner's brother Suman Prakash Yadav on 12-10-2007 at 8.30 a.m. at Firozabad by firing gun shots at him. A report was lodged on the same day at P.S. Firozabad, U.P. by petitioner and case was registered against respondent No. 2 and Ors. for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of IPC. Copy of the FIR is Annexure P-1. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, TI Gola Ka Mandir in conspiracy with respondent No. 2 in order to screen respondent No. 2 Ashok Dixit in connection with the offence of the murder of petitione...
israt Jahan (Smt.) Vs. Rajia Begum and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT338
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. This writ petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13-8-2008 passed by the Court of District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Suit No. 2-A/08.2. Short facts involved herein are that the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 to 7 instituted a suit against defendant/petitioner and defendant/respondent No. 8 with the allegation that their predecessor namely, Sabdar Hussain (husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7) was owner of the suit property to the extent of one half. He was an old person with weak eye sight and weak mental faculty. A registered sale deed dated 24-4-2007 was got executed from him by the defendant/petitioner in respect of his share in the disputed land. Sale deed was for consideration of Rs. 5,64,400/-, out of which Rs. 2 lacs was shown to have been paid in advance. It was alleged that the consideration was not paid at all and the registered sale deed was got executed in collusion with the...
Vimlabai and ors. Vs. Sharif Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ257MP; 2009(4)MPHT425
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Following questions are referred to this Full Bench:(i) Whether, in an appeal for enhancement of compensation when there is no dispute about the liability of the Insurance Company, it is necessary to pass the award against all as they are jointly and severally liable ?(ii) Whether the respondent No. 2-0wner of the disputed truck and respondent No. 3-Insurance Company both are jointly and severally liable to pay amount of compensation to appellants-claimants or respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the appellants-claimants ?2. Facts relevant for the purpose of reference are in a narrow compass. Truck No. H.R. 38 D-1157 was owned by Satish Kumar (respondent No. 2) whereas the same was being driven at the relevant time by Sharif Khan (respondent No. 1). It was insured with the United India Insurance Company (respondent No. 3). Claimants/appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Kapoorchand, who was travelling in Jee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »