Madhya Pradesh Court October 2011 Judgments

indore Mahavidyalaya, Indore and Others Vs. National Council for Teach ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of W.P. Nos.6557/2011, 6367/2011 and 4691/2011. 2. W.P. No.6557/2011 is at the instance of the institution i.e. Indore Mahavidyalaya, Indore whereas W.P. Nos.6367/2011 and 4691/2011 are at the instance of its students. In all these writ petitions the orders relating to the withdrawal of the recognition granted to the Indore Mahavidyalaya are under challenge. 3. The petitioner in W.P. No.6557/2011 is a college involved in teaching of B.Ed., M.Ed. and D.Ed. courses. It was granted recognition by National Council for Teachers Education (for short “NCTE”) for starting B.Ed. course by order dated 11.2.2004 and D.Ed. course by order dated 16.11.2004. Later on, vide order dated 18.12.2008, recognition was also granted for M.Ed. course. The petitioner-Institute was inspected by the inspection team of NCTE on 10.2.2009 which allegedly gave a report in favour of the petitioner and the said report was submitted in the pend...

Dinesh Nagda Vs. Shantibai

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC is at the instance of the plaintiff-husband against the judgment dated 16/2/2005 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch in Hindu Marriage Case No.40/2005, dismissing the suit for divorce. 2. The appellant-husband had filed the suit for divorce on 6/5/2004 pleading that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent 22-23 years back and a female child was born out of the wedlock. Sometime after the marriage, the respondent had started pressurising the appellant to shift to her parents place as the father-in-law of the appellant had no male issue. When the appellant denied, the behaviour of the respondent changed and she started fighting with the family members of the appellant on small issues. About 10 years prior to the filing of the suit, the respondent had left the appellant's place along with her daughter and had gone to her parents place. The father of the respondent had fi...

M/S. Gaurav Enterprises Vs. the State Bank of India and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:- 1. Earlier the borrowers, i.e., respondents No.3,4 and 5 herein, filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No.4898/2011. The said writ petition was filed on 23.7.2011. On 28.7.2011 the parties to the said litigation produced a settlement, which was entered into between them before the court and court passed the order in terms of settlement. The terms of settlement are as under:- “(1) That, the present petition has been filed challenging the auction proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India under SARFAEST Act, 2002. (2) That, as on date an amount of Rs.1,05,36,058/- (Rupees One Crore Five Lakh Thirty Six Thousand and Fifty Eight Only) is due against the petitioner. The property has already been auctioned on 26.07.2011. (3) That, the petitioners are ready to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,05,36,058/- on or before 05.08.2011 in full and final settlement. If the afor...

Gei Industrial Systems Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2012AIR(MP)44

1.Seeking constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute between the parties, this application is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Petitioner company claims to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office in 26-A, Industrial Area, Govindpura, Bhopal. It is stated that the petitioner is a reputed company involved in heavy engineering works and has executed various contracts even for the respondent. It is stated that the parties are having long standing business relationship. According to the petitioner, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘ONGC’ for short),a Government of India undertaking, placed certain contract with the respondent, for the purpose of supplying Process Gas Compressor Coolers. The respondent, therefore, invited a limited public tender, where the offer of the petitioner was found to be the lowest and technically acc...

Ajay Sharma Vs. Smt. Archana Sharma

Court: Madhya Pradesh

G.D. Saxena, J. (1) Being aggrieved by an order dated 2nd August 2011 in Criminal Case No. 47/2010 by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court, Gwalior, directing thereby the petitioner to pay the arrears of interim maintenance amount to respondent till decision on the application under Section 151 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner to set aside the order of interim maintenance, this revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been submitted. (2) The facts, in short, just for the decision of the aforesaid cases, are that petitioner Ajaya Sharma was married to respondent Mrs. Archana Sharma on 16/2/97 at Gwalior and a child Ekansh was born on 10th February, 2000 out of their wedlock. The petitioner Ajay Sharma was working as AGM in Larsen and Toubro Company in USA. It is alleged that there the petitioner developed an illicit relations with another lady and he used to torture and threatened the respondent and was also trying to get divorce from her. She was forced t...

Hariom Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

G.D. Saxena, J. This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, read with Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, has been preferred against an order dated 10th of August, 2011 in Sessions Case No. 25/2011 by the First Additional Sessions Judge Guna (M.P.), holding thereby the respondents/accused No. 2 and 3, namely, Shakir Mewati and Saddam Mewati as juveniles in exercise of powers conferred under Section 7-A of the said Act and the juveniles mentioned above were directed be tried by the Juvenile Justice Court at Guna. (2) The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that on 6/12/10 at Town of Raghogarh, District Guna, one Deepak Soni, s/o Babulal Soni was reported to be missing from his house. Said report was recorded in Rojnamcha of the police Station. During search on 8/12/10, the dead body of Deepak Soni in a gunny beg was found under beneath of culvert of ITI at Raghogarh. Accordingly, a Mar...

General Manager (Randr;) Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporation ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1..... F.A. No.474 of 201110.10.2011Shri Amit Khatri, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 by filing a Caveat. Shri S. Dwivedi, Counsel for respondents No. 3,4 and 5. I.A.7890/11 under Section 149 CPC. Along with this application, appellant has deposited deficit court fees of Rs.95,612/-. This Court fees was deposited on 4.7.2011 along with the application. Considering the averments made in the application, we allow this application and time period for deposit of the court fees has been extended to 4.7.2011, on which date the deficit court fees was paid. I.A. is finally disposed of. Heard on admission. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 is accepted by Shri S. Upadhyaya. I.A.7076/11 : Application for stay. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid application and has referred para 26 of the impugned award to show that the amount awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1 and 2 is just a...

Smt. Leena Cherian Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 3 (i)

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1..... M.C.C.No.1446 of 201110.10.2011Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by Shri Lal that in other identical matters this Court has allowed further four months time from 19.9.2011 for the compliance of order dated 1.3.2011 passed in W.P.3466/11 and similar time period may be extended in this matter also. Considering aforesaid, in the interest of justice, we allow the prayer made by the petitioner and accordingly allowed time period of four months from 19.9.2011 in this case also with the same terms and conditions which were envisaged in order dated 27.8.2011 in M.C.C. No.1187 of 2011. With the aforesaid, this M.C.C. is finally disposed of with no order as to costs.(Krishn Kumar Lahoti)JUDGE vj(Smt. Vimla Jain)JUDGE...

Durga Prasad Rai Vs. Shri Anirudh Mukherjee

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1..... R.P. No. 435 of 201110.10.2011This review petition is directed against an order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the case No.106/2010 was disposed of finally. complied with. From the perusal of the record we find that this review has been sought merely on the ground that the order was not complied with but the contempt petition was disposed of finally treating that the order was complied with. Considering the order dated 6.5.2011 in C.P. No.106/2010, we find that certain amount were paid to the petitioner by the respondent. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the aforesaid calculations or payment of the amount, petitioner may reagitate the matter by filing a fresh petition before the appropriate forum. With the aforesaid liberty this R.P.435 of 2011 is finally disposed of with no order as to costs.(Krishn Kumar Lahoti)JUDGE vjAs the order passed bythis Court dated 18.12.2008 in W.P. No.15185 of 2008(s) was(Smt. Vimla Jain)JUDGE...

Arun Parashar Vs. Mohan Lal Yadav

Court: Madhya Pradesh

F.A.No.902/2011 Arun Parashar Mohan Lal Yadav & another10.10.2011 Shri Rajneesh Patel, counsel for appellant. None for respondent no.1, though caused appearance by filing caveat. Admit. Issue fresh notice to the respondents. period of one week by Regd. A/D mode. Record of the trial Court be summoned. I.A.No.11870/2011. Issue notice of this application to respondent no.1. Steps within a period of one week by Regd. A/D mode. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that respondent no.1 Mohanlal Yadav shall not alienate/transfer the suit land without seeking prior permission of this Court. Appellant to communicate this ex-parte temporary injunction order upon respondent no.1, as is required under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C., and to file compliance report within a period of one week in the Registry. Be listed for further consideration of this application in the 3rd week of November, 2011. C.C., as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) JUDGE (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE Steps within aM...