Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 25.4.2011 passed by 4th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhind in Case No. 42-A/2009, whereby the application of the petitioners/defendants preferred under Section 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act is rejected by the Court below. 2. In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the petitioners entered appearance and filed their written statements. Thereafter, they preferred application under Section 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act stating that on 12.6.2004 the meeting of Gram Panchayat, Ehrolighat was convened. A resolution was passed in the said meeting whereby the partition between parties was accepted. By placing photocopy of the said resolution, it is stated that the original of said resolution has been removed from concerned register of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, this photocopy be treated as secondary evidence. 3. The plaintiffs filed its reply dated 5.4.2011. It is stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
S.K. Palo, J. 1. Regard being had similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above-mentioned cases were heard analogously and a common order is being passed. 2. Appellant-accused Karanveer Rana (Cr. Appeal No. 367/2006) and appellant-accused Lakhan Lal Mishra (Cr. Appeal No. 368/2006) have filed their appeals under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C to set aside the judgment dated 21st April, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Guna in Special Sessions Trial No. 2/04, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [ in short PC Act''] and sentenced imprisonment for terms of one year each and imposed fine of Rs.2000/- and under Section 13 (2) of PC Act, imprisonment for one year each and fine of Rs. 2000/- each respectively. In lieu of fine, the appellants are directed to undergo sentence of three months each for every count. 3. The material facts which are n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Prakash Shrivastava, J: 1. Shri Aniruddha Gokhale, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard finally with consent This application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") has been filed for appointment of the independent arbitrator. In brief, the case of the applicant is that the parties had entered into a distribution agreement dated 26-9-2006 which was initially for a period of 36 months, but subsequently renewed. The distributorship agreement was suddenly terminated by the respondent, vide communication received by the applicant on 6-12-2013. The applicant had sent notice dated 7-1-2014 for appointment of the arbitrator. Since the independent arbitrator was not appointed within the period specified, therefore, present application has been filed. 2. The respondent has filed the reply raising the objection that as per the terms of the agreement, the Courts at New Delhi have the exclusive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
S.K. Palo, J: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2012 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. 08/2012 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 the plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act 1984. 2. By the impugned order the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior has rejected the application under Section 7 read with Section 9(4) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 3. The disputes lies in a narrow compass. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Gwalior observing that "Court" in Rule 2 (V) of Madhya Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003 means Court of Principal Civil Court of the District, rejected the application stating that it has no jurisdiction to try the application. 4. The appellant - plaintiff moved an application under Section 7 read with Section 9(4) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 for adoption of the subject a abandoned child who is in the cust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
S.K. Palo, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the detenu- Ajay Singh @ Deepu, seeking quashment of the order of detention dated 12th December, 2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind and the subsequent order of Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department, Bhopal dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P-2). Both the orders were issued under the National Security Act, 1980 (for brevity it is referred as the Act of 1980''). 2. The Superintendent of Police, Bhind filed a report before the District Magistrate, Bhind on 27-11-2013, stating that due to the criminal activities of the petitioner, the persons are not willing to come forward to record their evidence in criminal cases against the petitioner. Due to the activities of the petitioner, the peace of the area was in danger. The Superintendent of Police has mentioned the details of seven criminal cases registered against the petitioner, which are as follows:- SL. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question tenability of an order dated 20.10.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.14853/2007 (s) by which the respondent Dr. B.P. Garg has been directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages. 2. Respondent Dr. B. P. Garg was working as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. It was alleged against him that while working as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari by presenting two documents in a fraudulent manner, he had managed to get compassionate appointment for his daughter Smt. Rakhi Shukla. Accordingly a charge sheet was issued to him making the aforesaid allegation and based on the finding of guilt recorded in the departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Appeal filed before the Disciplinary Authority of the Department was also dismissed and therefore, the matter travelled to the Writ Court. The Writ Court ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Rohit Arya, J: 1. Shri Shishir Saxena, Advocate for petitioners. Shri Mahesh Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Ravi Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.9. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14/12/2012 in Civil Suit No.3A/2012, wherein defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration, injunction, partition and possession. During pendency of the suit an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed where-under plaintiffs sought to clarify the fact as regards actual property for seeking their specific share and, therefore, had sought amendment that instead of three houses, as stated in the plaint, in fact there is only one house of which 1/3rd share has been sought for partition and possession. Amendment was allowed as the same was found to be not changing the nature ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
S.K. Palo, J. 1. Appellant/husband has filed this appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 aggrieved by the judgment dated 21-9-2010 passed by the District Judge, Shivpuri, in Case No. 73/09 (HMA) by which the District Judge, Shivpuri, has refused to allow the application under Section 13(1)(1-A) and (1-B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for decree of divorce against the respondent/wife. It is not disputed that the appellant and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 2-6-2002 at Village Padora, District Shivpuri. 2. The appellant/husband has filed an application for divorce against respondent/wife on the ground of 'cruelty' and 'desertion'. Applicant has alleged before the Trial Court that after their marriage they lived peacefully for some time but after two years the respondent/wife changed her behaviour. She was not cooperating in the domestic work, she used to leave the matrimonial home and used to visit her maternal home without informing the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Rajendra Menon, J. 1. As common question of law based on identical facts are involved in all these four references made under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as a common order is passed by the then existing Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in disposing of four appeals, all these four references are being disposed of by this common order and for the sake of convenience the documents and pleadings available in C.E.R.No.8/2003 is being referred to in this order. 2. The questions of law formulated in the cases read as under :- "1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in negativating the contention raised by the assessee that in the obtaining factual matrix the Superintendent of Central Excise could have issued the notice to show cause in relation to excess availability of MODVAT Credit by the assessee or it was either the Assistant Commissioner or the Collector Central Excise in the case at hand ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in arriving at the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. Parties were heard on IA No. 2952/2014, an application filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 81 (3) read with Section 86 of Representation of The People Act, 1951 (for brevity, the 'RP Act') for dismissing the petition, IA No. 2953/2014, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC read with Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for dismissing the election petition and IA No. 3224/2014, another application filed under Section 81(3) read with Section 86 of the RP Act. 2. The petitioner, a member of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), submitted his nomination to contest the State Legislative Assembly Election of 2013. The nomination form was submitted for Constituency No. 11, Lahar district Bhind. The respondent No. 5 also submitted his nomination form with requisite affidavit for contesting the election. The nomination form and affidavit of respondent No. 5 was scrutinized by the officers of the Election Commission. The petitioner submitted his objection against the nomination form a...
Tag this Judgment!