Madhya Pradesh Court September 2014 Judgments
Rajkumari Vs. Sonu Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
S.K. Palo, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Second Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court) Ganjbasoda district Vidisha in case no. 47-A/2006 (H.M.A.), whereby the learned Second Additional District Judge has granted decree of divorce in favour of the husband/ respondent, the appellant / wife has filed this appeal under section 28 Hindu Marriage Act,1955. 2. It is not disputed that marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 22nd April 2004 at village Basoda by observing Hindu custom. This marriage was held in 'Samuhik Vivah Sammelan'(A common marriage platform in which number of couples particular community solemnized their marriage. 3. Brief fact transpired before the learned trial Court is that immediately after the marriage on 22-04-2004 the respondent / husband suspected that the appellant / wife is pregnant. The respondent took her to a maternity home Bhopal for her checkup. Whereby it was informed that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Pandokhar District Dati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
S.K. Palo, J: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.01.2001 pronounced by learned Session Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial No. 152/1998 by which the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents for the offences under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution story before the trial court, in brief, was that the prosecutrix along with her husband Kaushal Kishore lodged a report at Police Station Pandokhar, Datia on 04.03.1998 that the prosecutrix had gone, to bring grass for feeding the cattle, nearby the field of Chandan Singh where there was crop of gram nut, accused Gulab Singh armed with "Kulhadi" and accused Pappu armed with "Lathi" caught her. They pulled her into the field and turn by turn committed sexual intercourse with her, her slippers were torn, a Bichhua (short of ornaments used on the feets) was missed. 3. Police Station Pandokhar registered the crime, investiga...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Dew As Municipal Corporation Vs. Anusueeya w/o Babulaal ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
S.C. Sharma, J: 1. Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners Commissioner, Municipal Corporation along with three others before this Court have filed this present petition against the order dated 3-4-2014 passed by the learned District Judge Dewas. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the sole respondent has filed a civil suit claiming damages as the house was demolished by certain persons. An application was preferred on behalf of the defendants stating that in light of section 402 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, no civil suit is maintainable as the officers of the Municipal Corporation are enjoying immunity for any act done by them in good faith. The order passed by the trial Court reflects that the plaintiff was directed by the trial Court on 5-4-2010 to implead the State of Madhya Pradesh as one of the respondents and the same has been done. The order further reflects that there is an allegation in the plaint that without any not...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh and Another Vs. Brijbhan Singh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
Heard. This appeal under Section 100 of CPC by defendants No. 1 and 3 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29/1/2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No. 82-A/2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 15/9/2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Chanderi in Civil Suit No. 84-A/2011. By the impugned judgments and decree, the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction has been decreed. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that the suit land involved in the suit is an agricultural land ad-measuring 0.669 hectares falling in survey No. 239/16/4 in village Wadera, Tahsil Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar. Undisputedly, suit land is recorded in revenue records in the name of plaintiff as Bhoomiswami. Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land all along been of his ownership and possession. Land is duly mutated in revenue records in his name by the Tahsildar Chanderi. There is a Pakka Me...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Sharma Vs. Shashkiya Karamchari Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
Rohit Arya, J: 1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC is preferred against the order dated 15/4/2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2013 by First Additional District Judge, Sheopur. By the aforesaid order, the application preferred by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of appeal are to the effect that plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit land ad-measuring 40x 90 sq. ft. part of survey No. 284 and 285 in Tahsil Sheopur inter alia contending that though lands falling in aforesaid survey numbers are government lands but since the time of their father, the suit land has been in their possession where a house has been constructed and garden has also been developed. Plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of suit land for last 30 years continuously, peacefully and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of defendants/State, as such have perfected their title by adverse posse...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Singh Rawat Vs. State of MP and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
Sheel Nagu, J: 1. This instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 30.04.2010 contained in Annexure P/10 passed by Collector Morena levying fine/penalty 2,79,400/- (ten times the amount of royalty) by invoking the provisions of Section 247 (7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ("MPLRC" for brevity). 2. The challenge is further made to the appellate order passed under Section 44 of MPLRC by the Additional Collector, Chambal Division contained in Annexure P/11 dated 30.09.2010 upholding the order of Collector Morena. 3. Though the petitioner has raised various grounds in support of challenge to the order of penalty, but the learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer to the ground of impugned order of penalty being passed beyond jurisdiction vested in the Collector u/S.247 (7) of MPLRC. 4. Short facts giving rise to the instant petition are that a show cause notice was issued on 31.12.2009 Annexure P/8 for illegal mining of 635 cubic-...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Shukla and Others Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
1. Calling in question tenability of order-dated 13.12.2013, passed by respondent No.1 - The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in Writ Petition No. 22347/2013. The order under challenge in Writ Petition Nos. 2268/2014 and 3207/2014 are dated 17.1.2014. 2. As common questions of law and fact are involved in all these three cases, they are being decided by this common order and for the sake of convenience, the documents and pleadings available in Writ Petition No. 2268/2014 is being referred to in this order. 3. The only question of law involved in all these cases are as to whether a permit can be granted for plying of a stage carriage in a route for which formulation of the route under section 68(ca) is yet to be made. 4. In all these three cases, the application for grant of stage carriage permit was submitted on a date much before the formulation of the route under the statutory provision, but when the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
Sheel Nagu, J: 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties, on the question of final disposal. 2. This common order shall govern the disposal of above said writ petitions which have been analogously heard since all these petitions contain common question of law based on similar factual matrix. The facts attending W.P. No. 1459/2013 are being referred to in passing of this common order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends in all the above said petitions that the petitioners were granted temporary lease of different pieces of agricultural land situated on different survey numbers as described in table mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order situated in village Phadalaya, Tehsil and Dist. Sheopur in the years 2003, 2004 and 2006. 4. One Smt. Geeta Bai lodged written complaint in regard to the said grant of temporary lease in favour of the petitioners raising various grounds including the petitioners not being residents of the village concerned and so also not being land l...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Memorial Nursing Home and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
S.K. Gangele, J: 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the notice dated 08-06-2011 (Annexure P-1) and the notice dated 17-06-2011 (Annexure P-2). 2. One Mr. Baijnath Sharma was granted licence by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior- respondent on 21-01-1985. By the aforesaid licence, he was granted permission to construct a Nursing Home on the roof of shops. Following were terms and conditions of the licence agreement, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-5 along-with the writ petition:- "LANGUAGE" 3. As per the petitioner, Mr. Baijnath Sharma incorporated a Charitable Trust, named as "Kalyan Memorial Charitable Trust" (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust"). He was founder of the Trustee and life-long President for (3) WP No. 4047/2011 the effective administration and maintenance of the Trust. Municipal Corporation was informed about the Deed of Trust vide letter dated 21-01-1985 (Annexure P-6). The Trust constructed a Nursing Home and the Trust has been running a ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohaseen Kureshi Vs. Secretary State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
As Per Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Consti- tution of India, the petitioner has challenged his detention order dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by District Magistrate, Indore in exercise of his powers under Section 3 (2) of the Na- tional Security Act, 1980 (for short, the Act) as also the order dated 14.11.2013 (Annexure P/2) passed by the State Govern- ment under Section 12 (1) of the Act by which the order of de- tention passed by the District Magistrate, Indore has been af- firmed. 2. At the outset, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government has passed the impugned order of detention for a period of 12 months at one stroke; being in violation of the spirit of proviso to Section 3 (3) of the Act and is also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh 2014 Criminal Law Journal 2748, the same is liable to be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›