Madhya Pradesh Court March 2014 Judgments
Shabbir Mohammad Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
1. By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner Shabbir Mohammad has challenged the recovery made against him pursuant to the order dated 10.03.2008. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner rendered service on the post of Driver in the Department of Tribal Development at Alirajpur. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2007, however, he was allowed to continue into service up to 10.03.2008. He also continued to receive salary for the said period, however, respondent No.3 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Alirajpur issued an order dated 10.03.2008 and informed the petitioner that since his date of retirement was 31.07.2007 he had to be retired with retrospective effect and the excess amount paid to the petitioner by way of salary etc would have to be recovered from the retiral benefits and the excess amount was declared to be Rs.52646/-. 3. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had submitted all the required p...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. By filing this intra Court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant/writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 4393/2011 has challenged the common order dated 5-12-2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 4393/2011 and in Writ Petition No. 2314/2011. 2. Briefly stated, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14-6-2008 issued by Gram Panchayat, Sajwani inviting applications for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, the appellant submitted his application. In the merit list of the candidates prepared by the Gram Panchayat the appellant s name was at Serial No.1. However, no order of appointment was issued in favour of the appellant and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Barwani, on behalf of Gram Panchayat, Sajwani, issued a fresh advertisement on 1-1-2009 inviting applications for appointment on the said post. The appellant again applied for the said post. Again his name was at ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. ACC Limited Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice (Oral): 1. In this petition, the petitioner originally challenged the decision of the M.P Pollution Control Board dated 7/3/2014. However, by way of abundant precaution, the petitioner has also asked for further relief against the State Government relying on the fact that even after submission of the application for renewal of mining lease on 16/10/2008, which was made well in advance, the State Government has not taken any decision thereon. As a result, by virtue of Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for brevity the Rules of 1960 ), sub-rule (6) in particular, the State Government has deemed to have extended the lease by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon. This position is no more res integra. 2. Petitioner has relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Pratap Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (1996 MPLJ 233). Petitioner has sought further relief of declaration and di...
Tag this Judgment!Buddhiprakash Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Rohit Arya, J: 1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 21-12-2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 54A/2013 by X Additional District Judge, Gwalior, District Gwalior affirming the judgment and decree dated 19-8-2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 34A/2009 by V Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code whereby suit of the plaintiff has been decreed as regards 'bona fide need of nonresidential accommodation' as envisaged under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The subject-matter of the suit is a shop situated at Bhonsle Ka Bada, in front of Mrignayan show room, Patankar Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') which was part of the property in dispute. The suit premises was purchased by the plaintiffs/respondents. 3. As per the plaint allegations, the defendant/appellant was occupying the suit premises as te...
Tag this Judgment!Phoenix Devecons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manisha Parihar and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Shantanu Kemkar, J: 1. With consent heard finally. 2. This order shall govern the disposal of the W.A. No. 318/14, W.A. No. 319/14, W.A. No. 320/14, W.A. No. 321/14, W.A. No. 322/14, W.A. No. 323/14, W.A. No. 325/14, W.A. No. 328/14, W.A. No. 329/14, W.A. No. 330/14, W.A. No. 331/14, W.A. No. 332/14, W.A. No. 333/14, W.A. No. 334/14, W.A. No. 335/14, W.A. No. 336/14, W.A. No. 337/14, W.A. No. 338/14, W.A. No. 339/14, W.A. No. 340/14, W.A. No. 341/14, W.A. No. 342/14, W.A. No. 343/14, W.A. No. 344/14, W.A. No. 345/14, W.A. No. 346/14, W.A. No. 347/14, W.A. No. 348/14, W.A. No. 349/14, W.A. No. 350/14, W.A. No. 351/14, W.A. No. 352/14, W.A. No. 353/14, W.A. No. 355/14, W.A. No. 357/14, W.A. No. 358/14, W.A. No. 359/14, W.A. No. 361/14, W.A. No. 362/14, W.A. No. 363/14 as they arise out of a common order dated 30-11-2013 passed in various writ petitions observing that the question involved in all of them ate identical in nature. 3. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Rai Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Alok Aradhe, J: 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks quashment of acceptance of single offer of respondent No. 4 for grant of licence to sell country and foreign liquor as well as order dated 10-3-2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to open the financial bid of the petitioner to grant licence to him as he is the highest bidder. 2. In order to appreciate the petitioners' grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted their tenders for obtaining licence in respect of country liquor and foreign liquor retail shop situated at Khandali, District Narsinghpur. The petitioner offered a bid of Rs. 3,59,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores fifty nine lacs) whereas the respondent No. 4 submitted an offer of Rs. 3,51,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores fifty one lacs). The petitioner along with his tender form submitted a demand draft of Rs. 43.50 lacs towards earnes...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. and Others Vs. Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 11-2-2014, whereby petitioner's application dated 24-6-2013 preferred under Rule 9 of M. P. Arbitration Rules, 1997 (for brevity, the 'Rules') read with Order 14 and Order 18 of Code of Civil Procedure, is rejected by the Court below. 2. The relevant facts are that on 8-3-2008 an agreement for execution of work of rehabilitation of Chambal Right Main Canal was executed between the petitioners and respondent. It is contended that the work order was issued on 8-3-2008 by directing the contractor to complete the work within 36 months. The petitioners submitted that the progress of the work of the respondent was not satisfactory and, therefore, it led to a dispute between the parties. Ultimately, the petitioners cancelled the contract by letter dated 26-4-2011 and invoked the bank guarantee. The respondent in...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhna Yadav Vs. Devendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
1. The applicant has preferred the present revision being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.7.1999 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in criminal case No.76/1987, whereby the respondents No.1 to 3 were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant Sadhna Yadav (P.W.1) had lodged a typed FIR, Ex.P/1 against the respondents No.1 to 3 on 19.6.1987 to S.P., Jabalpur, which was ultimately marked to the Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur and case was registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur. According to the applicant, her marriage took place with the respondent No.1 Mahesh on 23.6.1985. She was being tortured by the respondents No.1 to 3 for demand of dowry including a cash of Rs.10,000/-, Rajdoot motorcycle and golden bangles. She was being assaulted by her mother-inlaw and in the last 3 months, she was given food only for once in the day. On 25.5.1986, her mother-in-la...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Heard finally with consent. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22/1/2009 rejecting the petitioner's case for grant of pension on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of period as required under Rule 2(k)(g) of the Pension Rules, 1979. The brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Gangman on muster roll on 1/1/1964. He had completed 25 years of service on 31/12/1989 and his services were regularised in contingency service with effect from 1/1/1996. He had retired on completing 60 years of service with effect from 30/6/2000. The petitioner had continuously worked from 1/1/1964 till the date of his retirement, but he was not extended the benefit of pension and by the impugned order his case relating to grant of pensionary benefits has been rejected stating that he was given the regular pay scale with effect from 1/1/1996 and had completed only four years and six months in the regular pay scale whereas h...
Tag this Judgment!Chandaram Vs. Swapnil and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
S.K. Seth, J: 1. The only short point involved in this appeal is whether the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation. 2. Facts, in brief, are as under: One Shantaram aged about 95 years met with an accident and he died because of injuries sustained in the accident. His son preferred a claim petition claiming compensation from the owner, driver and the insurer of offending vehicle which is a motor cycle. 3. The insurance company denied its liability to pay the compensation on various grounds including the ground that on the date of accident, there was no valid insurance coverage. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments found that appellant is entitled to recover a total sum of 62,000 from the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and exonerated the insurance company from its vicarious liability to pay any amount of compensation. It is this award and especially the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »