Madhya Pradesh Court February 2015 Judgments
I.C.I.C.I. Lumbard General Insurance Company and Others Vs. Shanti and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2015
1. This judgment shall govern disposal of M.A. Nos. 647/2009, 648/2009, 649/2009, 650/2009, 651/2009, 753/2009, 757/2009, 768/2009, 769/2009 and 778/2009 as all these ten appeals have been filed under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the common award dated 16/1/2009 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in claim case No.62/2007 (Smt. Babli and Ors. Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.), 59/2007 (Smt. Shanti and Ors. Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.), 61/2007 (Smt. Munni and Ors.Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.), 60/2007 (Smt. Ramwati and Ors. Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.) and 36/2008 (Madhosingh Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.). 2. M.A.Nos. 647/2009, 648/2009, 649/2009, 650/2009 and 651/2009 have been filed by Insurance Company assailing impugned awards on the premise of breach of policy whereas M.A.Nos. 753/2009 has been filed by injured Madhosingh for enhancement of impugned award. Madhosingh was awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,519/- for the fractures sustained by him. M.A.Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2015
This matter was taken up yesterday i.e. 24.02.2015, on which date, the respondent No.5 had opposed the prayer made by the petitioner for listing the petition on some other date and had also prayed for vacating the interim order. In view of the opposition of the private respondent No.5, the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.5, who had appeared in person, agreed to argue the matter today personally by discharging their Advocates. The parties were informed of the consequences of discharging their Advocates and also informed that later on they would not be at liberty to take up the plea of rehearing of the petition on account of absence of the Advocates. The parties have understood the implications of the said discharge and have agreed to argue the matter personally. On the request of the petitioner and respondent No.5, their respective Advocates namely Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari and Shri Vijay Shukla are hereby discharged. The petitioner and respondent No.5 are heard in person...
Tag this Judgment!Sakshi Bhardwaj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
The petitioner submits that since her Advocate has expressed inability to appear before this Court today but in view of the urgency, she has decided to discharge her Advocate and argue the case herself. The petitioner was informed that once the matter is argued on merits she may have to take the consequences of the arguments advanced before the Court and later on will not be permitted to approach the Court for re-hearing of the case on the ground that the Advocate engaged by her was not present or heard by the Court. She has accepted this condition. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to discharge her Advocate and argue the petition in person. Heard on admission. The petitioner, who had appeared in the LL.B. 3rd Semester Examination held by the respondent-University in December 2013, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the result declared by the respondent-University and has prayed for re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the 3rd Semester Examination. It is submitted by the...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Bohare Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1. By invoking the supervisory powers of this Court under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 2.2.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.906/2008 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, whereby charge under Section 406 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that petitioner is the Dealer of the tractors. Petitioner sold a tractor of Mahindra Company to complainant Mevalal which was also financed by the petitioner. The loan amount alongwith the interest Rs. 3,21,000/- was to be repaid, but the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- in time. Thereafter, the petitioner took the tractor from the complainant forcibly before four years with cultivator and the same has not been returned till now. It is also alleged that petitioner sold the tractor to another person and committed cheating. Complainant Mevalal Kushwah sent a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Bhind, for taking...
Tag this Judgment!Quazi Ziyauddin Vs. M.P. State Election Commission and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
He submits that Advocate engaged by him has expressed inability to appear before the Court due to call given by the Bar Association to boycott this Court. He submits that he may be permitted to discharge his Advocate. He submits that he is compelled to take this step as matter cannot wait any further considering the fact that election is scheduled to be held on 22.02.2015 and if the matter is not heard before that date, the same will become infructuous. On the oral request made by the appellant, Advocate Shri M.K. Agrawal is discharged. Appellant has been informed that once the Court considers the arguments on merits, later on, appellant will not be permitted to file application for rehearing of the case on the ground that on earlier occasion Advocate could not appear in the Court. Appellant has understood the consequences and accepts the position. In view of the above, the matter was proceeded on merits. Now the appellant submits that he may be permitted to take assistance of Shri Qua...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. C.E.C. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983 being aggrieved by an award dated 29th October, 2003 passed by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in a proceeding held under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983 (herein after refer to as the Adhiniyam of 1983 ). 2. Facts in brief which are necessary for deciding the issue in question goes to show that the State Government issued a notice inviting tender for the purpose of constructing right and left rockfill dam in the Ban Sagar Project, District Shahdol. Petitioner submitted their offer for both the right and left rockfill dam. Petitioner's tender was accepted and a contract was given to the petitioner for the purpose of right rockfill dam. The contract for left rockfill dam was given to M/s Bihar State Construction Corporation. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.4 on 3.10.1983 and the agreement stipulated conclusion of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Construction Thru. Shiv Narayan Pathak Vs. Public Works Departmen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
1. They are heard. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of order dated 15.09.2014 issued by the respondent No.2. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a contract for construction of high level submersible bridge across river Angrer near Kheda Village for Kheda approach road on Pithampur Kheda Road, District Dhar was awarded to the petitioner @ 1.01% above SOR for road and bridge works issued by EinC, PWD, M.P. and enforce from 15.04.2009 amended upto the date of issue of NIT has been accepted by EinC, PWD, Bhopal on behalf of the Governor of M. P. 3. After signing of agreement, the work order was issued on 12.11.2012. As per work order, the petitioner was to complete the work within 12 months excluding rainy season but the same was not completed and inspite of various notices to carry out the progress in the work, there was no progress in the work in proportion to the time stipulated in the work order and the extent...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Khare Vs. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Gurgaon and Anot ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the award dated 20-4-1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jabalpur in Reference Case No. ID/Ref/8/90, whereby the orders of termination of service the petitioner have been upheld and the reference in that regard made by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a medical representative in the establishment of the respondent-company at Indore region and was posted at Jabalpur. It is submitted that on 5-6-1989 the respondent-company issued an order of en-bloc transfers of 22 representatives to remote areas including the petitioner who was transferred from Indore region to Imphal in Guwahati region. It is submitted that the order was passed by the respondent-company on account of union activities of the petitioner with a view to harass and punish him for the same and, therefore, after issuance of the said order, the M.P. Medical an...
Tag this Judgment!Director Sagar Maize Products Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. Heard on I.A.No.3860/2012, an application for condonation of delay. 1.1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by the appellant against the order of ITAT dated 30.4.2011 is barred by 287 days. 2. An application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that the impugned order dated 30.4.2011, was passed and pronounced by the tribunal in open court as appeared from the order. However, it was kept reserved for a long time and when the order was pronounced by the tribunal, appellant was not present and the counsel of the appellant was not aware of the order dated 30.4.2011 and when a demand notice dated 4.1.2012 was served upon the appellant on 5.1.2012 by the Assistant Commissioner, Ujjain, the appellant came to know about the order passed by the tribunal in favour of the department and against the appellant. He obtained the certificate copy of the order on 2.2.2012 through his counsel and filed a W.P.No.2387/2012 and thereafter, the same was decided...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India and Another Vs. Manish Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
C.V. Sirpurkar J 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the creditor-Bank against the borrower respondent, who is proprietor of a private hospital. 2. In this writ petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Allahabad, in Modf./Review Sr.No.158/2013 arising from Appeal No. R-12/11. A prayer has also been made for a direction to the effect that the petitioner Bank is entitled to realize the entire outstanding dues from the respondent by sale of the mortgaged property in the case of failure on the part of the respondent to deposit the same. 3. A plethora of facts have been pleaded for and against the petitioner; however, the facts necessary for disposal of the petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner Bank initiated action for realization of outstanding dues against the respondent under the provisions of Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »