Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Ashadevi Gupta Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
[1] This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the LOI issued in favour of respondent No.3 for allotment of the retail outlet dealership. [2] In brief, the respondent No.1 had issued the advertisement dated 16/10/2009 for appointment of dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump) at various places in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner along with other candidates had submitted an application dated 15/11/2009 on 3/12/2010 for appointment of Dealer location at upto two kilometer from Kukshi bus stand towards Bagh. Thereafter the petitioner had participated in the screening and was placed at Sl.No.1 whereas the respondent No.3 was placed at Sl.No.2 in merit in the list of shortlisted candidates dated 14/7/2010. Since the LOI was issued to the respondent No.3 instead of the petitioner, therefore, the present writ petition was filed. [3] The respondent No.1 and 2 have filed their reply stating that the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1 and respondent No.3 ...
Kapuri Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the appellant/accused Kapuri Bai against a Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7th September, 1999 delivered by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T.No.219/95. 2. By the aforesaid impugned judgment, co-accused Hotam Singh stands acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B or in alternative under Section 302 of I.P.C. So also present accused/appellant was also acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., but was held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which she was directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one year. 3. As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 28/3/94 when Sunita Bai (since deceased) was brought to the hospital for treatment in a burnt condition. A Dehati Nalish (Ex.P/14) was lodged by her on the same day...
Midex Global Private Limited Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of Indi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
[1]This Writ Petition is directed against the decision of the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the list of the willful defaulters and also against the communication of the said decision to the petitioner vide Annexure P/1 and P/5. [2] In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the borrower of the respondent bank and had availed various facilities for its trading operations. Initially, the petitioner's account was rated as A Plus but later on the petitioner was lured by the officers of respondent bank to venture into Forex derivative transactions which was later found to be illegal by the RBI, consequently, petitioner had suffered huge losses. The respondents vide communication dated 25/6/2011 had informed the petitioner about sending of his name for inclusion in the list of willful defaulters, against which the petitioner had preferred the representation/objection dated 16/7/2011, but in violation of the principles of natural justice, the respond...
General Manager (O and M Circle), M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. This petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenges the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman of Madhya Pradesh dated 13-1-2014. The said authority in Case No. LOO32113 allowed the appeal of the respondent/consumer. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this matter are as under:- The respondent preferred an application Annexure P/3 dated 17-10-2011 before the Executive Engineer of petitioner's department praying for reduction of contract demand from 600 KVA to 100 KVA. Admittedly, this application was submitted before the Executive Engineer on 22-10-2011. In turn, the matter was sent before the competent authority i.e. Chief General Manager (GR). The said authority by order dated 24-11-2011 (Annexure P/5) decided the application dated 2-11-2011. The said authority accepted the request for reduction in contract demand from 600 KVA to 100 KVA subject to certain conditions. Thereafter by communication dated 21-12-2012 petitioner inform...
Alfa Constructions Vs. Vinod Kumar Thareja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Alok Aradhe, J. 1. By means of this petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act), the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The facts, giving rise to filing of the petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a builder and developer, whereas the respondent is the owner of plot ad measuring 11000 square feet situate at Idgah Hills, Bhopal. The parties entered into a joint venture agreement on 2-7-2004 under which the petitioner agreed to construct duplexes on the land in question subject to the terms and conditions, enumerated in the aforesaid agreement. The sale proceeds were to be divided in the ratio of 55% and 45% respectively between the petitioner and the respondent. The Municipal Corporation Bhopal granted the permission for construction of duplexes on 16-6-2004 and thereafter the construction of the duplexes commenced. The petitioner executed sale deeds on behalf of the respondent as his attorney. However, the ...
Balram Mahajan Vs. Praveen Kumar and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 5.10.2012, whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff preferred under Order 39 Rule 7 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. is rejected by the Court below. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P-4). In this application it was prayed that there is a dispute about the actual position of the cemented boundary wall and regarding actual position of latrine and bathroom of plaintiff. To determine the correct facts, it is necessary that the property in question be investigated. It was, therefore, prayed that the Court may appoint an Advocate or an employee of the Court for the purpose of investigation. 2. The prayer was opposed by the other side by filing reply (Annexure P-5). The Court below after considering the reply rejected the said ...
Dheeraj Pandey and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2014
1. Petitioners were students of Gyan Ganga Institute of Technology, Jabalpur and appeared in the B.E. Second Semester examination conducted by the respondent-University. The petitioners appeared in the examination conducted for the academic session in June, 2013 and thereafter, in certain subject which are indicated in the writ petition, the petitioners received zero marks. It is the case of the petitioners that they have a bright past and in all the semester examinations and other examinations previously conducted they have received more than 80 marks and they contend that because the petitioners have received less marks than expected, it is apprehended that the answer sheets have not been properly valued. Making an allegation that their answer sheets have not been properly valued, they sought for revaluation of the answer sheets. However, as the rules do not permit revaluation, it seems that re-totalling of marks was done and a result of no change was communicated to the petitioners....
Ram Sewak Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2014
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 22.03.2014 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision No.237/2013, seeking following reliefs: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing a writ of certiorari or any suitable writ, order, or direction and the order impugned dated 22.03.2014 Anex. P/1. may kindly be quashed restoring permit Anex.P/5. in the interest of justice. Any order, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of case may kindly be passed, awarding cost of petition to the petitioner." 2. Brief facts necessary for just disposal of the present petition are that petitioner on 19.06.2013 had moved an application for grant of permanent permit of the Vehicle No. MP06-P-0406 of 2010 model having capacity of 50+2 seats from Guna to Gwalior via Shivpuri, Mohana Route for two single trips...
Bagadiram s/o Bherulal Vs. Shivnarayan s/o Ramratan and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
1. Shri R. S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Brijesh Pandya, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on I. A. No. 1463/14, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after receipt of the notice of the writ petition, applicant has engaged Shri Ajit Jain, Advocate of Mandsaur who assured applicant that he will appear and conduct the case before the Hon'ble Court. But later on applicant came to know that he has not appeared before the Hon'ble Court on the date of hearing, therefore, the impugned order has been passed in his absence. Thereafter, he came to Indore and obtained the certified copy of order then engaged the counsel and filed the application. Thus, this application is delayed by 115 days. The delay is bona fide, in support of the application, he has filed the affidavit, therefore, it is requested that delay be condoned. 3. Learned counsel fo...
Mahendra Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, in Appeal No.41/2012 seeking following reliefs: "(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or direction for quashing the impugned orders dated 09.04.2012 and 13.06.2013 Annexure-P/6 and P/9. passed by STA and STAT with further direction to grant stage carriage permit on the route in question for 2 S.T. daily for a period of 5 years to the petitioner. (ii) Passing any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Costs of petition may also be awarded to the petitioner's society." 2. Brief facts of the case are that one application was filed on 18.09.2011 by the applicant for regular Stage Carriage permit for the route Tikamgarh to Datia. The application was filed in accordance...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »