Madhya Pradesh Court May 2011 Judgments
Satish Kumar VermA. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. Heard Shri Hitendra Singh, Advocate, on I.A. No. 6528/2011 which is an application filed on behalf of intervener Shri Sai Mandir Samiti, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, for extension of time to shift the temple from the place in question. 2. It is to be noted that this application was listed for consideration on 13.5.2011 and on that date the counsel appearing for the management of temple made a statement that the management was willing to give an undertaking to shift the temple within a reasonable time. On his request for short date to submit the undertaking we had listed the matter today. Unfortunately, the counsel now states that the management is not coming forward to give any such undertaking. 3. We, by our order dated 15.4.2011, have already held that the temple has been constructed unlawfully on a public road and it will be open for the district authorities to ...
Tag this Judgment!Tejas Construction and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred mainly for rejection of bid/tender of respondent No.2 and for consideration of tender of petitioner's firm on merits, without objecting to it's eligibility. 2. Facts relevant for the petition are that the petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in civil work projects like spinning mills, sugar factories, water supply project, power project, etc. Municipal Council, Sendhwa (respondent No.1) published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 02.03.2011 for carrying out the construction of water supply at Sendhwa. Date for submission of tender was fixed on 25.03.2011 and the date for opening of tenders was also the same. Copy of NIT is Annexure P/2. Last date for submission of tenders was extended up to 30.03.2011 (03.00 PM) vide Annexure P/3. However, tenderers participating in the bid were required to submit the docum...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Neelophar Khan. Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. With consent of l earned counsel for the parties the matter i s heard final l y. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi a i s directed against the order dated 05/07- 03- 2011 passed by respondent No. 3/ Chief Executive Officer, Janpad PanchayatMohgaon, tahsi l and district-Mandla, whereby services of the petitioner, who was employed as Data Entry Operator on contract basis, have been dispensed with. 3. Facts briefl y are that, the petitioner in response to the policy of the State Government vi z., Backward Regi on Grant Fund Scheme, which was brought in vogue to operational ize block resource centres, was appoi nted as Data Entry Operator i n Janpad Panchayat Mohgaon, tahsil and district Mandla, by order dated 24- 02- 2011WP6257.11 (Annexure- P/8). The appointment was on contract basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 4. Contention of the petitioner is that despite of rendering satisfactory services, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar NekhrA. Vs. the State Bar Council of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The first mentioned of these two connected writ petitions being W.P. No. 6628/2011 has been filed by the present Chairman of the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. The second connected petition being Writ Petition No. 6372/2011 has been filed by a Member of the said Bar Council. Both the petitions have been filed for the same relief2 on virtually the same grounds. They have been heard together and are consequently being disposed of by this common order. Two broad questions have been raised (A) whether the Rule 122-A framed under section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is ultra-vires, and (B) whether the second resolution (Annexure R/6 to the Bar Council’s return) dated 16-04-2011 in the meeting of the Bar Council is invalid. The relevant facts are given below. 2. Shri Rameshwar Neekhra was elected as a Member of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council in 2008. Shri Neekhra was elected as Chairman of the Bar Council by its members on 31.8.2008. 3. For prescribing (i) the manner of...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Gangwal. Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. With consent of l earned counsel for the parties the matter i s heard final l y. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi a i s directed against the order dated 05/07- 03- 2011 passed by respondent No. 3/ Chief Executive Officer, Janpad PanchayatMohgaon, tahsi l and district-Mandla, whereby services of the petitioner, who was employed as Data Entry Operator on contract basis, have been dispensed with. 3. Facts briefl y are that, the petitioner in response to the policy of the State Government vi z., Backward Regi on Grant Fund Scheme, which was brought in vogue to operational ize block resource centres, was appoi nted as Data Entry Operator i n Janpad Panchayat Mohgaon, tahsil and district Mandla, by order dated 24- 02- 2011WP6257.11 (Annexure- P/8). The appointment was on contract basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 4. Contention of the petitioner is that despite of rendering satisfactory services, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Manohar Wadhwani. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. We have heard both sides. 2. An application to set aside an ex-parte order of DRT was rejected by the DRT. The petitioner who had made that application filed an appeal. The appeal purports to have been filed under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Even in this writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the appeal would be maintainable under any other provision of Act except under Section 20 of the Act. Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1994 is relevant for the purpose of fee payable on a memorandum of appeal preferred under section 20 of the Act. This Rule has been made under section 36 (2) (d) of the Act, which says that the Rules may provide for the fees payable in respect of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 20 of the Act. For ready reference the said Rule 8 is reproduced below :- Rule 8 Fe...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar at Raju Soni. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 6.9.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.904/1993 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- for committing murder of his wife Lalli Bai. 2. According to prosecution, Lalli Bai, the deceased was married to appellant about 7-8 years before the occurrence, which took place in the night of 21.8.1993. Her parents had given dowry in the marriage according to their capacity, however, her motherin-law Sumitra Bai (dead), father-in-law Nanhuram and appellant used to harass her. Appellant did not like Lalli Bai. Apart from that, all the accused persons used to demand motorcycle, TV and radio from her. She used to inform her parents and brother about the maltreatment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws. Her husband used to manhandle her on being provoked by her mother-in-law Sumitra. A...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Othrs
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2011
(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. (3) The contentions of the learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Arya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. The petitioner belongs to a Handicapped Scheduled Caste Category. The respondent No.2 had advertised four posts of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO) vide advertisement published in the Employment News with block dates of 29 th December, 2008 to 4 th January, 2009 (Annexure P/3 at page 14 of the paper-book). All these four posts were reserved for handicapped people. Out of them, two were unreserved, one reserved for SC and one for ST. 2. The selection was to be made on the basis of written test followed by an interview. The petitioner and respondent No.3 both belong to SC handicapped category. Petitioner got 247 marks in the written examination whereas respondent No.3 got only 180 marks. The mark-sheet of the petitioner is Annexure P-9 at page 10 of the rejoinder. The mark sheet of the respondent No.3 is Annexure R-3/4 at page 13 of the return to the petition filed by respondent No.3. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner is more meritorious th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Sapna Jotwani. Vs. Ghanshyam Singh Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. This appeal, by leave, has been filed against the order dated 2.11.2006 of acquittal of respondent of the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ( hereinafter referred to 'the Act' for short) passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal in R.T. No.980/2005 (Mrs. Sapna Jotwani v. Ghanshyam Singh Patel). 2. Short point, in this appeal is that the appellant has not challenged the findings of trial Court but she has advanced her Judgment Criminal Appeal No. 1135/2007 arguments that documents which have been produced in I.A.No.13349/09 dated 6,10,2009 be taken on record, the order of acquittal be set aside and the matter be remanded back to trial Court for afresh trial on the basis of documents. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has objected for taking documents on record and remanding the case for afresh trial in the light of the documents as respondent has already been acquitted of the charge levelled against him and his valuable right will be affected and he will suff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »