Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Kishore Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2014
S.C. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner before this court who is holding the post of Transport Inspector in the Transport Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20-02-2014, by which he has been transferred from Check post Sendhwa to Check post Jhabua and the respondent No. 3 has been posted in place of the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a Transport Sub-Inspector in the Transport Department in the year 1989, vide order dated 09-08-1989 and he was promoted to the post of Transport Inspector, vide order dated 31-12-2002. The petitioner vide order dated 31-07-2013, was posted from Check post Malthaon to Check post Sendhwa and by the impugned order he has been transferred from Check post Sendhwa to Check post Jhabua. In his place respondent No. 3 Mr. T.P.S. Bhadoriya, who was posted in the Transport office, Bhopal has been posted at the Check post Sendhwa. 3. The petitioner has ...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2014
Prakash Shrivastava, J: 1. This arbitration case under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") has been filed by applicant for referring the dispute to an independent Arbitration. 2. The case of the applicant is that he is a Railway contractor and had entered into an agreement with Railway on 21/9/92. According to the applicant, the general conditions of contract are applicable and Clauses 63 and 64 provide for referring the dispute to the arbitration. The work, cost of which was approximately 17,24,525/was to be completed by the applicant by 27/11/92 but there was a breach of contract by respondents and therefore, the work could not progress and running bills were not paid. The dispute was not referred by the respondents for arbitration therefore, on 22/4/99 the applicant had filed MJC No. 16/99 (later renumbered as MJC No. 29/2007) under Section 11 of the Act before the Additional District Judge Ratlam which was returned on 14/9/2007 for filing ...
Neeraj and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Stati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2014
1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of Cr.A.396/1999 [Neeraj Vs. The State of M.P.], Cr.A.462/1999 [Bhola Mahor Vs. The State of M.P.], Cr.A.465/1999 [Kallu Jatav Vs. The State of M.P.] and Cr.A.566/1999 [Pappu Pal Vs. The State of M.P.] since all these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.1999 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.400/93 whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life (rigorous) each with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulations. 2. Prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 21.08.1993 at 9 A.M. Ram Narayan while going from Taraganj to the market at Balabai Ka Bag, Jamdar Ka Bagicha noticed that a dead body of a young man aged near about 23-24 years was lying half submerged in water. Ram Narayan informed the police on the basis of which Marg No.42/93 Ex.P-15 ...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2014
N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The applicant was convicted for commission of offence under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954") vide judgment dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 127/1991 and sentenced with six months' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-. In Criminal Appeal No. 32/2000, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa vide judgment dated 8.6.2000 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, this criminal revision is preferred by the applicant. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 12.10.1990 the Food Inspector Ramsevak Mishra (PW-1) along with the flying squad went to the Tail Ghani (small scale oil mill) of the applicant, situated at Shivpuri Mohalla Mundi Tahsil Khandwa. At about 10:15 AM he found that in two drums the applicant had collected 200 kg groundnut oil. The Food Inspector proposed to take the sa...
Rewaram Vs. Veerendra Kumar and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2014
1. This appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. by the objector/judgment-debtor/tenant is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 16-7-2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7/2004 by First Additional District Judge, Vidisha, District Vidisha affirming the order dated 13-5-2004 in Execution Case No. 133-A/89/01 by Civil Judge, Class I, Vidisha whereby the appeal has been dismissed. 2. The facts in detail need not be delved deep into as the matter at issue relates to eviction of suit premises by the tenant/judgment-debtor after the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. Instant case is, a rare case and it has set a classic example of misuse of process of law at the behest of chronic litigant/tenant dragging the landlord in coils of litigation and labyrinth of adversarial procedural laws. It is, in fact, unfortunate that a landlord/decree-holder having obtained a decree of eviction on 23-10-1997 in Civil Suit No. 133-A/89, which stands affirmed in First Appeal No. 13-A/2000, dec...
Ramesh @ Dabbu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2014
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 28.6.1996 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T.No.445/1994, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced with 7 years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16.3.1994, Sadhna Bai (P.W.1) had lodged an FIR, Ex.P/4 in Rojnamacha at Police Station Jahagirabad, District Bhopal that her married daughter, the prosecutrix went to the school to drop her younger brother but, she did not come back. Thereafter, a search was initiated and the prosecutrix was recovered on 21.3.1994. She was produced before the Investigation Officer at Police Station Jahagirabad. The prosecutrix had informed that on 16.3.1994, when she was coming back after dropping his brother Kishan at Anand Vidya Mandir School, the appellant met her on the way and forced her into an auto-rickshaw and took her to a village of ...
Yusuf Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2014
N.K. Gupta, J. 1. Vide judgment dated 25.8.1999 passed by the learned JMFC, Sohagpur in Criminal Case No. 193/98 the applicant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 4A (M.P. Amendment Act) of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and sentenced with three month's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine one month's simple imprisonment was also directed. In Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1999 vide judgment dated 16.6.2000 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision. 2. The prosecution's case in short is that on 22.5.1998 the Head Constable Shivbahadur Singh along with the Police Force went to Raghuwanshipura, Sohagpur on information that the applicant Yusuf Khan was involving some persons in gambling by help of satta slips. The Police Force surrounded the applicant and before witnesses ...
M/s. Radhe Machinery Vs. Chairman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2014
Alok Aradhe, J: 1. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the cases, accordingly, the aforesaid cases were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. For the facility of reference, facts of Arbitration Case No. 8/2006 are being referred. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil), Northern Coalfields Ltd., Khariya Project, issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 21-8-2000 for construction of civil work. The applicant submitted its bid in response to the aforesaid Notice Inviting Tender and a letter of intent was issued on 6-1-2001. It is the case of the applicant that on 3-3-2001, it successfully completed the work. Thereafter, on 26-12-2001, the applicant made a request to the non-applicant to make payment of the amount of bill towards the work executed by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant served a notice dated 31-5-2004 to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director the Northern Coalfields Limited, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. By an order dated 29-12-2004,...
Major (Retd.) Amar Singh Kwatra and Another Vs. Union Of India Through ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2014
S.C. Sharma, J: 1. The petitioners before this Court have filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the alleged action of the Indian Army in closing / obstructing the alleged road which is adjoining to the defence land and the land belonging to the petitioners. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that they have purchased land vide registered sale deeds dt. 8/5/07 and 14/2/08 bearing Survey No. 864 admeasuring 0.715 hectares and 0.143 hectares respectively in village Telikhedi, Mhow, Distt. Indore. The adjoining land belongs to the Indian Army (Army Golf Club) situated in GLR Survey No. 168. It has been further stated that the Army Authorities in the year 1983 in order to utilise the land in question have entered into a lease agreement with the predecessor in title and a small culvert was also constructed to provide free access for the golfers on the land in question across river Gambhir. The lease deed was later on extended in the year 1998. In the month of April, 2008 the pe...
Jamuna Prasad Vs. Balkishan and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2014
U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This case is listed today for admission and consideration of interim prayer for grant of stay against execution of the impugned decree under execution. In the available circumstances, the question involved in this petition could be considered and adjudicated effectively only in presence of the petitioner-objector and the respondent No. 1-decree-holder and the presence of the respondents No. 2A and 2B, the judgment-debtors, is not necessary. Consequently, the notice even against admission of this petition and the interim relief to them is hereby dispensed with. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. The petitioner-objector has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2013 passed by the IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in Execution Case No. 55-A/2012 whereby his application filed under Section 15...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »