Court : Madhya Pradesh
M.C. Garg, J: 1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid writ appeal as well as other 33 connected writ appeals being W.A.Nos.850, 851,852, 853, 854, 855, 856,857,858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884 and 902 of 2008, as the facts in all these cases are identical and arises out of common order dated 10.12.1998. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from W.A.No.873/2008. 2. These writ appeals have been filed by the IDA aggrieved of the common order dated 10.12.1998 delivered by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge decided all the 37 writ petitions filed by the respondents against finalization of the scheme under Section 50 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short referred to as the Adhiniyam) and subsequent land acquisition proceedings which have been undertaken by the State of M.P. under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short referred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Shantanu Kemkar, J: 1. With consent heard finally. This writ appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short "the Act"), is directed against the order dated 3-3-2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 1630/14. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that appellant/writ petitioner was elected in the year 2009 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Iklera, Distt. Rajgarh. On receipt of a complaint against her, a show-cause notice, dated 18-2-2013 under Section 40 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was issued to her by the Sub-Divisional Officer. She submitted reply of the said show-cause notice denying the allegation levelled against her. However, without giving proper opportunity to defend, the SDO proceeded ex parte against her in the enquiry and held her guilty of the misconduct, as a result, she was removed vide orders dated 11-10-2013 from the post of Sarpa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Rohit Arya, J: 1. This appeal by the plaintiff/appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1(u), CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-9-2012 passed in Civil Appeal No. 55-A/2010 (Meena Bai v. Shiv Dayal and others) by the Additional District Judge to the Court of II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 106-A/2009 (Shivdayal v. Meena Bai and others) has been set aside and remanded back to the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh on merits. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that as per plaint averments, the plaintiff's father, Mahesh Babu and Sukhlal are real brothers. Sukhlal was not married. He was dumb. He used to stay with the plaintiff's father. Plaintiff used to look after him, therefore, Sukhlal developed love and affection for plaintiff. On 10-2-1999, Sukhlal had bequeathed his share in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sheel Nagu, J: 1. This writ appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 1681/2013 on 11.07.2013, whereby the petition in question has been disposed of with the direction that the petitioner is liable to bear the expenditure of installing 33/11 KW Sub-Station in terms of Regulation 4.1.3 (ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenses and Other Charges for providing Electric Line or Plant Used for the Purpose of giving Supply) Regulations (Revision-I), 2009 ("Regulations of 2009" for brevity) and thus if the petitioner fulfills the conditions contained in the said provision, the application of the petitioner contained in Annexure P/6 shall be considered in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission as well as final disposal of the case. Submission of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Heard on I.A. Nos. 2022/2014 and 2546/2014. Counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing the applications. Hence, applications are allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on appeal. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants/State against the order dated 14/12/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.621/2010 (S). The respondent employee filed a petition before the writ Court claiming pay scale of the post on which he has been classified as permanent employee. He pleaded that he was classified as permanent employees as per the statutory provisions of M.P. Standing Standard Orders, however, he had not been paid the pay scale to the post on which he was classified. The learned Single Judge after considering the various judgments of this Court has held that the respondent employee is eligible to receive the pay scale after her classification. The main question for consideration in this appeal is that whether after classification an employee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Rohit Arya, J: 1. Defendant/petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 4/1/2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2012 by 14th Additional District Judge, Gwalior. By the aforesaid order, defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia contending that plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are sons of plaintiff No. 1 and thus are members of one family. They owned agricultural land ad measuring 0.303 hectare falling in survey No. 301 in village Gudha Lashkar, Gwalior. An area of 0.177 hectare has already been sold and remaining area of 0.126 hectare is in possession of plaintiffs; whereupon, they have constructed a residential house with boundary wall. In the plaint para 2, it has been pleaded that defendant No. 1 in collusion with some pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. In this application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, the 'Act'), the applicant has prayed for appointment of sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. 2. The facts narrated by the applicant are that respondent Banco Construction is engaged in the business of civil construction work and has been allotted different construction work in different parts of State of Madhya Pradesh. On 27.1.2009, the General Manager of M.P. Rural Road Development Authority (RRDA), Project Implementation Unit-1, Khandwa allotted a work for construction/upgradation of rural road under "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna" including maintenance for five years after construction. 3. The respondent used to perform its civil construction work by subcontracting the same to different specialized agencies/contractors. For this purpose, an agreement was entered into between the applicant and respondent on 14.9.2009 (Annexure P/1). As p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court. The petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 5th July, 2012 (Annexure P/1) by which the Manging Director of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension. 2. Shri Abhishek Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that petitioner is 75% handicapped person. The medical certificate showing the same is filed as Annexure P/2. The petitioner's father Late K.B.Saxena was an employee of LIC and died in harness on 31.03.1992. He was working as Development Officer at Vidisha. The petitioner's mother Manorama Saxena was receiving the pension after the death of petitioner's father. The petitioner's mother also expired on 12.01.2001. After the death of petitioner's mother, the Manager of LIC, Bhopal sent a letter to younger brother of the petitioner informing that his elder b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
S.K. Gangele, J: 1. This review petition has been filed for review of the judgment dt. 20.3.2013 passed in Second Appeal No. 349/2006. 2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they are the owners and occupants of the land area 4 bigha and 3 biswa of survey Nos. 579, 580, 581, 582, 587, 588, 589, 590, 592 situated at Kent Shivpuri. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 sold the land by registered sale deed dt. 13.11.1980 in a consideration of 28,000/- in favour of Shivgopal, Laxminarayan and Shanta Kumar. Mehar Ali and Roshan Ali were the real brothers. 3. The respondents denied the pleadings of the plaintiffs. They pleaded that Mehar Ali had no right in the suit property and the defendants came in possession over the suit land. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the original plaintiff did not file an application for bringing L.Rs. on record, hence, the application filed on behalf of the purchaser for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
S.K. Palo, J: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment pronounced on 1st November, 2006 by the District Judge, Bhind, in Civil Suit No.10/06 (Hindu Marriage Act) by which the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the husband/appellant was rejected, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Before the learned Trial Court it was not disputed that appellant married the respondent on 09.05.1983 according to Hindu rites. The parents and younger and elder brothers are also residing with the appellant. It is also not disputed that before filing of the petition, an effort was made by the relatives to keep the respondent separately in the parental house of the appellant and for some time 500/- rupees per month was being given to her as maintenance by the appellant. No child is born due to the wedlock of the appellant and respondent. 3. The appellant/husband filed the petition before the learned District Judge, Bhind, on th...
Tag this Judgment!