Madhya Pradesh Court May 2015 Judgments
Vimal Kumar Suri and Others Vs. Chanchal Bhaseen and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2015
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 22/09/2014 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.10/2014 by the 12th Additional District Judge, Gwalior rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction made by the plaintiff on the ground that no prima facie case is made out. The said rejection has been upheld by the appellate court. 2. The basic facts giving rise to the instant case are that plaintiffs brought suit seeking declaration of title over the suit house in favour of the plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 3. The plaintiff further sought declaration of the sale deed dated 04.08.1978 to be void and restraining the defendants No. 1 to 5 from alienating the suit house. The suit property was allotted to Late Jaichand Suri, the grandfather of defendants No. 3 to 5. This allotment was pursuant to application submitted by Late Jaichand Suri before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Government of India after coming from Pakistan to India (Gwal...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Mittal Vs. O.P. Sharma and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-25-2015
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 10.04.2015 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.12/2014 by the First Additional District Judge, Sheopur, whereby rejection of temporary injunction by the trial court has been upheld. 2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. The suit instituted by the plaintiff was for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/Company from digging pits in the agricultural land bearing Survey Number 80/1, admeasuring 0.418 hectare belonging to petitioner situated at Village Zaida Tahsil and District Sheopur for erection of tower for laying high tension electric line. 4.1 The plaintiff contended that being exclusive owner and in possession of the suit land, the same cannot be disturbed by the respondents/Company even for erection of tower for laying high tension line. The plaintiff contends that the land of the plaintiff cannot be utilized for any purpose by the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramprasad Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-21-2015
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T.No.17/1993, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/-, default sentence was also imposed in lieu of payment of fine. 2. The prosecution s case, in short, is that, on 22.1.1992, the deceased Asha Bai, wife of the appellant was taken to the hospital with the report that she had consumed some poisonous substance. However, she could not be saved. Dr.A.K.Naik of Rajendra Hospital, Tikamgarh has sent a merg intimation to the police at Police Station Kotwali, Tikamgarh and it was registered as Ex.P/10. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. A team of doctors including Dr.Amitabh Jain (P.W.5) performed the post-mortem on her body and gave a report, Ex.P/5. It was found ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2015
Sheel Nagu, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by a Civil Contractor belonging to category Class-I allegedly possessing wide exercise in the field of widening and construction of roads, seeking quashment of Annexures P/1 and P/2 by which fenders are invited for widening and construction of roads under 11 different civil contract packages nomenclatured as "H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R". All these packages comprise of work of three different stretch of roads. The concern of the petitioner is with civil contract packages comprising of the following roads:-- 1. Mohanpur Behat Mau (MDR-01-01) and Behat Mau (MDR-02-03), Length 51.651 Kms.; 2. Murar Chitora (MDR-01-08), Murar Chitora (MDR-02-08) and Gatha Amayan (MDR-02-06), Length 45.810 Kmsk; 3. Mohana Pohri (MDR-07-06), Length 62.360 Kms. 2. Thus, for a person bidding, it is necessary to bid for each civil contract package comprising of three different stretches of roads. In other words, the tend...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh @ Sarda Pradesh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2015
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 9.3.1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Case No.63/97, whereby each of the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 376(2) and 506-II of the IPC and sentenced to ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-. In lieu of payment of fine, the default sentence was also imposed. 2. Facts of the case in short are that in the midnight of 11th and 12th January, 1997, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was sleeping in her hut situated in the field of her husband at village Tumra (Police Station Chargawan, District Jabalpur). At about 12:00 O'clock in the night, the appellants entered in the hut of the prosecutrix. Initially, the appellant Kok Singh removed her clothes and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, the appellants Chunna @ Jhalkan Singh and Hari Singh @ Sarda Pradesh had also committed rape upon the prosecutrix one by one. T...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmendra Singh Tiwari Vs. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Singh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2015
1. This order shall govern disposal of I.A. No. 20/2014 and I.A. No. 21/2014. 2. I.A. No. 20/2014: This application has been filed by respondent No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC ) read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereafter referred to as the R.P.Act ), inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner has called in question, the election of respondent No.1 from Assembly Constituency No. 66 Amarpatan, on the ground of suppression of material facts while submitting the nomination paper, indulging in corrupt practices and exceeding the limit of expenditure. It is further submitted that the pleadings contained in Election Petition do not disclose any cause of action because there is no specific pleading in regard to fact that how election of respondent No.1 has been materially affected. It is further submitted that there is no specific pleading in regard to corrupt practices and exceeding the limit of...
Tag this Judgment!Hariom Singh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2015
1. By invoking the supervisory powers of this Court under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 8.10.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.249/2013, whereby charges under Sections 294, 307 and 307/34 of IPC have been framed against the petitioners. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that complainant Sundar Singh has lodged a report that a dispute is going on for the last 2-3 months between him and the petitioners as they had installed a submersible pump in the Government hand-pump and the complainant got it removed. On 11.3.2013 at about 7.20 pm when the complainant was in the house alongwith his family, the petitioners, his neighbours, by taking his name were abusing him. As soon as the complainant alongwith his son Ajay Pratap came out from the house, petitioner Amar Singh with intention to kill the complainant fired from his 12 bore gun which hit on the rim of tractor and from that something hit at the ches...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Veneer and Plywood Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2015
1. In this appeal preferred under section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as `Act'), 1996, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 20-8-2010 passed by the trial Court by which objection preferred by the appellant under section 34 of the Act has been dismissed as barred by limitation. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order few facts need mention which are stated infra. 2. The appellant had established its veneering unit at Betul in pursuance to the assurance given by the State Government and an agreement was executed between the parties on 28-11-1978. Under the agreement, teak and timber was to be supplied to the appellant for a period of 12 years from 14 depots which were specified in the agreement. The respondents failed to adhere to its commitment spelt in the agreement. The dispute between the parties arose on account of demand notice issued by the respondent on 26-3-1988 and 5-4-1988. The appellant a...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Sahare Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2015
Sushil Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.257/14 registered at P.S. Badarwas, District Shivpuri, for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (In short Act of 1955). 3. As per prosecution case, complainant Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Block Badarwas has lodged the report at Police Station Badarwas that sample of Vantolite Sulphur 90% Batch No. BNS 011 taken on 25.01.2014, which was supplied by Aviral Bio-Tech and Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., Mandideep, Raisen and same was sent for examination at Quality Control Laboratory, Bhopal, was found sub-standard. On this report, police has registered offence under section 3/7 of Act of 1955 against the applicant who is the Manager of quality control. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has ...
Tag this Judgment!Anuj Associates Vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Limited a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2015
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 is absent, though served. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the tender process which has already culminated with the issuance of work order in favour of respondent No.3. The tender document of the petitioner has not been accepted. 3. The principal ground urged in this petition is that the tender document submitted by the respondent no.3 was not accompanied by proof of requisite experience and P.F. Code as per Clause 4(b) at item No.11 of NIT. In other words, the tender document submitted by the respondent No.3 was incomplete as it did not contain the mandatory documents to establish the eligibility of the respondent No.3 to participate in the tender process, to wit, experience certificate and P.F. Code. Those documents were mandatory as can be discerned from Clause 4 of the notice inviting tender dated 15.09.2012 and conjointly read with ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »