Madhya Pradesh Court November 2014 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.
Babulal Pachori and Others Vs. State of MP and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
1. The petitioners are retired time-keepers. They have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-1). It is further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents not to make any recovery from the pension/retiral dues of the petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners were working as time-keeper. Their initial pay scale was Rs.445-635. A petition was filed before this Court (M.P.No. 3885/1986). The said Misc.Petition was transferred to M.P.State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called as "Tribunal") and was re-registered as TA No. 993/1988 (L.N.Upadhyay and others vs. State of MP and others). Shri Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel submits that the present petitioners also filed a matter, which was registered as TA No.995/1988 (P.R.Shinde and 97 others vs. State of MP and others). The Tribuan passed its basic order in TA No. 993/1988 on 6.11.1998 (Annexure P...
Ramsevak Shivhare and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
These applications (M.Cr.C. No.4069/2014 and M.Cr.C.No.4098/2014) under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent power of this Court seeking quashment of F.I.R.No.89/14 dated 31.3.2014 registered at Police Station G.R.P. railway, Gwalior. Regard being had similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above mentioned cases were heard analogously and a common order is being passed. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the petitions are Anushri Gupta, sister of the deceased Anuraj Gupta married to Sumit Raj Shivhare, the son of petitioners Ramsevak Shivhare and Smt. Shashi Shivhare and the brother of petitioner Neha Shivhare (after marriage Neha Dixit). Allegedly, Anushri Gupta was being harassed by her in-laws. They were demanding dowry and the same could not be fulfilled by her mother who is a widow and her brother Anurag Gupta. Anurag Gupta leaving a suicide note and allegedly committed suicide in the Rairu Railway crossing. The suicide note was recov...
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. M/s. Lion Engineering Consultan ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
1. Rejection of application seeking amendment in the application for setting aside Arbitration Award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'AC Act') by order dated 14.2.2014 by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Bhopal has led the objector to an Award file this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Undisputed facts borne from the record are that a contract for consultancy and its implementation services for third party evaluation and quality control/assurance for construction of building costing about Rs.75,372.31 lakh in accordance with specifications and relevant I.S. Codes using funds provided by Rajya Shiksha Kendra Bhopal was entered into between the petitioner and respondent on 29.1.2007. 3. That, on there being certain allegations of contractor entering into certain unlawful activities in respect of payment of first and second bills, an enquiry was caused. Pending the outcome of said enquiry, respondent-contra...
R.P. Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Difference of opinion as to whether an order dated 18.11.2011 passed in W.P. No.14740/2008 : Ashok Kumar vs State of M.P. and others and the batch of writ petitions, viz. W.P. No.1796/2007, 3437/2007, 3804/2007, 3822/2007, 8611/2008 and 14738/2008 could be reviewed for the reasons mentioned in Review Petitions : R.P. No. 124/2012 and R.P. 306/2012, has paved the path for laying the matter before this Court for an opinion as to "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the review petitions are to be allowed or dismissed". 2. The writ petition called in question the validity of provisions of the Court Fee (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2008 in so far as it substitutes Article 11 a(i) in the second schedule appended to the Court Fee Act, 1870, stipulating "(ii) In article 11, for clause (a) and entry relating thereto, the following clause and entries relating thereto shall be substituted, namely : (a) when presented to the High Court (i) by the claimant for enhance...
Kamlesh and Others Vs. Urmila Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
1. The petitioners/defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 15.9.2014 passed in Case No. 99/12 ED by first Civil Judge, Class-II, Jaura, District Morena. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioners filed their written statements. The trial Court framed issues on 5.12.2013. The plaintiff's witnesses filed their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The Court below decided the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC filed by defendants No. 11 to 13. The said application was allowed on payment of Rs.2000/- as cost. Thereafter, on 9.9.2014, the defendants No. 1 to 3 and 11 to 13 prayed for time to cross-examine the plaintiff. The Court below by order dated 9.9.2014 allowed the adjournment to the counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 3 subject to payment of Rs.200/- as cost. It was made clear by the Court below that in absence of paying the cost, ...
Monika Gupta Vs. Avinash Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
1. Since these matters are arising out of the common proceedings of court below under section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act,1890 (hereinafter called as "Act"), with the consent of parties matters were analogously heard and are decided by this common order. WP No. 8017/2012: 2. This matter is arising out of Case No.18/11 (Guardians and Wards Act). The said case was filed under Section 25 of the Act by the respondent/husband. He prayed for custody of his eight years old son. The husband has filed a divorce petition, which is subjudice. In Section 25 proceedings, the husband filed an application for interim custody of the child (Annexure P/4). Reply of petitioner is Annexure P-5. The court below allowed the said application by impugned order dated 16.10.2012. It was contended by the petitioner that child is suffering from some ailment. In that situation, it will not be safe to hand him over to the husband alone. It was stated that the interest and welfare of the child is paramount conside...
Jogendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
1. Petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the Act of 2000 ) against the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.376/2014, whereby the rejection order of bail application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2000 dated 8.10.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior has been confirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that complainant has lodged a report that on 6.9.2014 four unknown persons who were covering their faces entered in the home of complainant and robbed ATM Card, Registration of Motorcycle, one mobile and Rs.10,000. Report was lodged and Crime No.719/2014 was registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior under Sections 458, 380, 395, 398 of IPC, Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and Section 25/27 of Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested. 3. Initially father as a natural...
Vivek Khare and Others Vs. The State of M.P and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
1. This order will also govern disposal of W.P. No.13194/2004-Ku. Reena Rai and others vs. Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar and others, WPS No.4863/2005-Om Prakash Richariya v. The State of M.P. and others and WPS No.4868/2005-Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. The State of M.P. and others. 2. In the group of these cases, main challenge is to the order dated 12.11.2002 said to be passed in an appeal by the Collector, District Tikamgarh filed by one Ku. Bharti Nayak, the respondent No.5, in the present writ petition. The said order was called in question in a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, but since the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2004, therefore, the writ petition is filed by all the petitioners. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is same as has been raised in the other companion writ petitioners, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. However, for the convenience and for the pu...
Vitthal Rao and Others Vs. Kokila Bai and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
S.K. Gangele, J. 1. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in regard to a house situated at Mahadik Sahab Ka Bada, Lashkar, Gwalior bearing No.2/196 of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. 2. The suit property is the ancestral property of Govind Rao Mahadik. He was died on 23.11.1964. He had four daughters. Three daughters namely; Kokila Bai alias Rekha Bai, Nirmala Bai and Tilottama Dhumal were alive at the time of death of Govind Rao Mahadik and one daughter Nirmala Bai was died during his lifetime. 3. Plaintiffs pleaded that after death of Govind Rao Mahadik, they became owners of the property alongwith defendants No.1 and 2. During his lifetime, Govind Rao Mahadik instituted a suit against Krishna Rao Mahadik before the District Judge Gwalior and in the aforesaid suit after death of Govind Rao Mahadik, defendants No.1 and 2 also made Smt.Nirmala Bai Khadke, Vijay Singh and Sumitra Bai as representatives of Govind Rao Mahadik. The suit property is the joint prop...
Kanti Bai and Another Vs. Ram Naresh Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. Passed on 20th day of November, 2014) Vide order dated 1.10.1996, the JMFC Umariya, District Shahdol passed in MJC No.42/1996 granted the maintenance of Rs.300/- each to the applicants per month. In Criminal Revision No.201/1997, the Additional Sessions Judge Umariya, District Shahdol vide order dated 23.5.1998 confirmed the maintenance of the applicant no.2 but dismissed the order of the trial Court relating to the applicant no.1 and also dismissed her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the revisionary Court, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 2. Facts of the case in short are that the marriage of the applicant no.1 took place with the respondent 6-7 years prior to the date of application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. One girl child was also born to the applicant no.1 and her husband. On 26.8.1996, the applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that the respondent ousted her alongwith h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »