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.
Lakhan Ghanghoriya Vs. Anchal Sonker and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. This order shall govern disposal of I.A. No. 2/2014, which is an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC , I.A. No. 3/2014, which is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and I.A. No. 18/2014, which is an application under Order VI Rule 17 and Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 2. I.A. No. 2/2014 has been filed under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC by respondent No. 1. It is submitted in the application that the petitioner has called in question the election of respondent No. 1 from Assembly Constituency No. 97, Jabalpur (East) mainly on the following grounds :- (i) The polling booths close to the house of respondent No. 1 were not changed as a result of which certain voters could not exercise their franchise. (ii) There were undue changes in the voters list resulting in exclusion of certain voters who would have voted for the petitioner. (iii) The EVM machines, not functioning properly were replaced and in one such EVM machine 340 votes were found as...
M/s. G.D. Oil and Floor Mill Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order Annexure P-1 whereby the Electricity connection granted to the petitioner was disconnected. It is further prayed that order dated 14.8.2006 whereby the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 30,00,000/- against supplementary bill be also quashed. In addition, the demand of Rs. 81,66,909/- of the other side is also under challenge. Lastly, it is prayed that the electricity supply of the unit of the petitioner be restored. 2. Shri V.K.Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel at the outset, fairly submits that this matter is squarely covered by the recent judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (3) MPLJ 552 (Hotel Adityaz Ltd. Gwalior Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., Bhopal and others). However, he submits that another similar matter like Hotel Adityaz (supra) was decided by Gujarat High Court. It is reported in 2014 AIR CC 497 (GUJ) (Shree Vardhaman Salt Works v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co...
Ramit Kumar Pathak Vs. Pawan Kumar Pathak and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
(1) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred before this court on being aggrieved by the order dated 18/3/2010 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.11A/09 (Ramit Kumar Pathak Vs. Pawan Kumar whereby the application filed by the Intervenor-Ramkishan Dubey under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. with the aid of section 151 of C.P.C. has been allowed by the court-below and the plaintiff/petitioner was directed to implead the intervenor-Ramkishan as respondent No.3 in the suit proceedings and the case was fixed for 26/3/2010 for filing written statement by the intervenor. (2) It is pertinent to mention here that the proceedings of the trial court are stand still because of the order of the stay passed by Division Bench of this court on 9/11/2010. (3) The facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition are as under: A civil suit bearing No.11A/09 was instituted by the plaintiff-Ramit Kumar against his father-respon...
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Satyendra Singh and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. This appeal under Section 96 of CPC at the instance of State Government is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28/1/2008 passed in Civil Suit No.01-B/2006 alongwith an application (I.A. No.6116/2010) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay as the appeal is barred by 717 days. 2. Upon service of notice, respondent no.1 has filed reply to the aforesaid application for condonation of delay. 3. I.A. No.6116/2010 is taken up for consideration. 4. Upon perusal of the application, it is apparent that there is no explanation for the delay caused in filing the appeal. In para 1 of the application, it is stated that to obtain certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28/1/2008 appellants filed application on 21/2/2008 and the certified copy was delivered on 26/2/2008. Thereafter, matter was in the process of seeking legal opinion of the Government Advocate. In para 2, it is stated that the Law Department granted permission for filing the appeal...
Balmukund Sharma Vs. Balkrishna Sharma Upadhyay and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 27.11.2013 whereby the court below has allowed the application preferred under Order 19 Rule1 and 2 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff and permitted him to cross-examine the persons who have filed their affidavits along with reply of application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. 2. The plaintiff / respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner / defendant No.1. The plaintiff stated that he is the owner of the house having half share and similarly his mother was having half share in the house. In her life time, mother Smt. Ganga Devi had executed a registered will dated 28.07.2007 in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, after the death of his mother, he became exclusive owner of the suit property. Accordingly, relief was claimed that plaintiff be declared as an exclusive owner and in possession of the suit property. In addition, a permanent inju...
Dheeraj Kansana Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. Heard. The petitioner is seeking to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR registered at Crime No.115/2014 at Police Station Saraichhola, district Morena, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as well as charge-sheet and other criminal proceedings related to the same FIR. 2. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 Jagannath Singh filed a report which was not entertained by the concerned Police Station. Petitioner is the Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Piparai, Janpad Panchayat, Morena. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner fabricated the signatures of respondent No.2 and withdrawn different amounts from the bank on different dates. On the basis of the complaint, the City Superintendent of Police wrote a letter to chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Morena, on 1.7.2014 (Annexure P/3) to make available the enquiry reports of the office as to the alleged withdrawal by forged cheques. In the enquiry jointly done by the A...
Narayan Prasad Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
Heard on IA 433/2014 n application for condonation of the delay in filing this review petition. Considering the facts of the case and the averments made in the application, the application is allowed and delay in filing this review petition is hereby condoned. Heard on merits of the case. This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 10th May, 2011 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.597/2005. Aforesaid first appeal was filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 26/10/2005 passed in Civil Suit No.10A/2004 whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff partially and set aside the sale deed dated 20/10/2003 for an area of the land admeasuring 0.107 hectare. It was held by the Trial Court that at the time of execution of the sale deed no consideration was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff nor possession of the land was delivered, hence, the sale deed was void. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,...
Omprakash Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police Station
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
1. By invoking the supervisory powers of this Court, petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') being aggrieved by the order dated 05-09-2013 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Joura District Morena in S.T.No.171/2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 319 of the Code was dismissed. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "By allowing this petition, impugned order dated 05-09-2013 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Joura District Morena in S.T.No.171/2011 be quashed and trial Court be directed to implead respondent No.2 -Rakesh Sharma as an accused person in the aforesaid S.T." 2. In brief, facts of the case are that incident has occurred on 06-11-2010 and Dehati Nalish was recorded on the spot to the effect that since in the election campaign of Gram Panchayat the petitioner/complainant -Ompraka...
Badam Singh and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
Heard. The petitioners have requested to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered as Crime No. 283/2013 dated 03.11.2013 at Police Station Bhitarwar district Gwalior under Sections 498-A, 506, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC and also the Police Challan No. 248 dated 11.11.2013 submitted before JMFC, Bhitarwar district Gwalior, which are marked as Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. Brief facts of the case are that:- The complainant/respondent No. 2 Smt. Saguna Bai married to accused Roop Singh 15 years ago. Due to their wedlock, two sons are born. It is alleged that her husband Roop Singh, father-in-law Khemu, mother-in-law Puniya Bai, brother-in-law (Jeth) Arjun Kushwaha, sister-in-law (Jethani) Leela Bai, sister-in-law (Nanad) (petitioner No. 2) Suman and brother-in-law (Nandoi) petitioner No. 1 Badam Singh (husband of the petitioner No. 2) were demanding dowry. The complainant's parents are very poor. They are unable to fulfill the...
Manisha Lalwani Vs. D.V. Paul
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
Alok Aradhe, J: 1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20-8-2013 by which the trial Court has partly rejected the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff under Order 16, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 2. The facts, giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner filed the suit for eviction on the ground enumerated under section 12(l)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The petitioner has also prayed for grant of mesne profit. The respondent in the written statement denied the claim and in particular grounds enumerated under section 12(b) and (i) of the Act. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was decided by the trial Court vide order dated 6-4-2014 by which the respondent was directed either to disclose the details of the accommodat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »