Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Hotel Adityaz Limited Vs. Madhya Pradesh Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the supplementary electricity bill dated 1.7.2014 (Annexure P/1), the Panchnama (Annexure P/2) and the interim assessment of tariff (Annexure P/3). 2. The facts as canvassed by Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner Hotel Adityas Ltd., is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner obtained high tension connection of 300 KV through service connection. The petitioner is paying monthly electricity bill regularly. It is stated that while giving high tension connection of 300 KV to the hotel, the service meter is installed on the electric poll, which is near to the outer gate of hotel premises. It is situated in an open space and is near about 70 ft. away from the hotel premises. The height of electric poll is 20 ft. and it is on the public place, not approachable by particular individual. For installation and providing supply of high tension conne...
Smt. Rambeti Jain and Others Vs. Smt. Meena Devi Tomar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 17.10.2012, whereby the petitioner/judgment debtor's application preferred under Section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P-3) is decided by the Court below. This is admitted between the parties that a judgment and decree was passed on 15.10.2010 (Annexure P-2). Since it was not implemented, the decree holder filed execution proceedings in the year 2012. In the execution proceedings, the present petitioners filed application under Section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P-3) by praying that small installments be fixed so that the decreed amount can be satisfied by the judgment debtors. On the said application the Court below passed the order dated 17.10.2012 and directed the judgment debtors to pay 50,000/- per month upto four months and thereafter pay the remaining 40,000/- in the last month. The petitioners have filed this petition feeling aggrieved by the said order. 2. Shri S.N.Seth, learned co...
Bismilla Bee Vs. Arjuman Aara and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 12.10.2011 passed in COS No. 73-A/2011. The Court below by the impugned order allowed the application dated 28.08.2012 (Annexure P/7) which was filed by the defendants No. 1 to 5 by imposing 500/- as costs and permitted the said defendants to file their written statements. Facts: 2. The petitioner instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendants. It was prayed therein that the plaintiff be declared as 1/5 share holder in the suit land after partition. Permanent injunction was also prayed for to restrain the defendants from alienating the property and from making any interference in joint possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The Court below issued notices to the defendants. Defendants entered appearance before the Court. Out of seven defendants, only defendants No. 6 and 7 filed their separate written statements. It is sub...
Manish Kumar Sharma Vs. Jagdish and Other
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. This review petition has been filed by the unsuccessful appellant under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C for re-calling the order dated 09/09/2009, passed by Single Bench of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 1116/2009, whereby the aforesaid appeal, preferred by the appellant Manish Kumar Sharma against the rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this review petition is that; Non-applicant No.1 Jagdish filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation to the tune of 11,36,000/- from the applicant in this case (non-applicant No.1 (Manish Kumar Sharma) and nonapplicant No. 2 Kumar Pal Singh the owner and driver of the offending bus, on the ground that the applicant Jagdish was travelling as bona fide passenger in Bus bearing No. M.P.06/B.0031 on 18.4.1994. The bus owned Manish Kumar Sharma, was being driven by non-applicant No.2 Kumar Pal Singh rashly and negligently due to which it me...
Shiv Singh Vs. Harnarayan and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the 6th A.S.J. Bhind in S.T. No. 141/2006 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harnarayan and others) decided on 5.9.2011 by which the learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons / respondents under Sections 147,148 and 307/149 of IPC, has filed this appeal under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass; The appellant is the complainant in S.T. No. 141/2006. It is alleged that on 25.12.2005 at about 10 AM near Sidh Baba Gate, which is situated near the residence of complainant Shiv Singh in village Githor, Thana Mehagaon, District Bhind the accused persons came in two vehicles some of them armed with mouzers and some with Lathi and Farsa. When the complainant was sitting in the Chabutra (platform), the accused persons fired in air, complainant was criminally intimidated. Some of the bullets fired hit on the complainant's doors and one bullet hit in his calf on the...
Dataram Singh and Others Vs. Brindawan Singh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. Parties are in loggerhead on the same issue before this Court for the second time. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the respondent No.1 filed a fresh counter claim on 23.12.2005 and on the same date withdrew his earlier counter claim. The court below permitted the defendant to file second counter claim. Against the order dated 19.1.2006, whereby second counter claim was permitted to be filed, the present petitioners filed WP No.1940/2006. The order of trial court permitting the defendant to file second counter claim was challenged on the ground that the plaintiffs' objection was not taken into account and considered by the trial court. This Court allowed the petition on 5.4.2007 and opined that the petitioners raised a specific objection that counter claim was not maintainable in view of Order 11 Rules 2 and 3 and Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC. The trial court erred in not considering the said objection. The matter was rem...
Rohit Kumar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer of Hoshangabad, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of the impugned order dated 10-4-2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No. 1-Secretary, Department of Home, Bhopal whereby, his application for grant of licence by transferring the licence of pistol/revolver of his father, has been rejected. 2. After taking me through the petition, return as well as the papers annexed with them, the petitioner"s Counsel argued that so many objections have been raised in the return of the respondents to defend this matter, but mere perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-2), it is apparent that for dismissing his application neither the merits of the matter nor the recommendations of the District Magistrate as well as of Commissioner for transferring the alleged licence in favour of the petitioner, were considered. He further said that the impugned order has not been passed by supplying the reasons in ...
Surendra Patel s/o Ramji Patel Vs. Ritu @ Vandana Patel w/o Surendra P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
Alok Verma, J: 1.3 This appeal has been filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and directed against the order passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur (MP) in Misc. Civil Case No.09/2012 dated 07/01/2013, whereby the learned Additional District Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent/applicant/wife Ritu @ Vandana Patel and granted custody of her daughter Vaishnavi aged about 2 yeas at the time of passing the order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was married to the respondent Ritu alias Vandana on 18/04/2009. Thereafter, a daughter Vaishnavi was borne, out of their wedlock. After sometimes, discord aroses allegedly on demand of dowry by the appellant. Thereafter the respondent left the house of the appellant and started living with her parents. The assertion of respondent is that her daughter was forcibly snatched by the appellant, therefore, she lodged an First Information Report (FIR) against the appellant w...
The Scindia Education Society and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
S.K. Gangele, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the notice dt.5.1.2009 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Building Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. The Officer directed the petitioner to remove illegal construction within a period of seven days, failing which appropriate action shall be taken for removal of the construction. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1950. A new Act was introduced in the year 1973 subsequently. The petitioner No.1 society has been running a school, which is 100 years old. On 30.10.1956, the State of Madhya Bharat, by way of Memorandum of Understanding granted perpetual lease of area on which the petitioner No.2 had possession on a rent of Rs.100/- per year. The school of the petitioner society is at Gwalior Fort and it is a boarding school for boys. 3. The School proposed for construction of a hostel building at Gwalior Fort within the location. It submitted an application to the Arch...
Jagdish Singh Sankhwar Vs. Archana
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.6.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Court below has accepted the application of the respondent preferred under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and directed the present petitioner to pay 3000/- per month as interim maintenance. This is an admitted fact between the parties that during the pendency of this petition the Case No. 230A/11 HMA in which interlocutory order Annexure P-1 is passed is finally decided. Against the said judgment, appeal was filed before this Court which has already been dismissed. 2. The singular ground of attack of Shri H.K. Shukla is based on, (2005) 3 SCC 636 (Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others), (2010) 10 SCC 469 (D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal) and judgment of this Court in, I.L.R. (2013) M.P. 956 (Tarachand Vishwakarma v. Smt. Pushpa Devi Vishwakarma). On the basis of these judgments, it is urged that the petitioner has a l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »