Madhya Pradesh Court September 2015 Judgments
M/s. Technofab Engineering Limited and Others Vs. Bharat Heavy Electri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2015
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. These matters have been referred by the Division Bench for reconsideration of the principle expounded in the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Fatehchand vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer and others (2009 (4) M.P.L.J 50). 2. The questions to be considered by the Full Bench have been formulated by the Division Bench in F.A. No.514/2012 and F.A. No.1134/2012 vide order dated 28.11.2014, as follows:- 1. Whether the ratio of the decision in Fateh Chand Supra (supra) is correct?2. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bombay vs. M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited, AIR 1960 SC 980 has application to Article 1-A of Schedule I to the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended by Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2008? 3. M.A. No.1774/2011 has been ordered to be heard analogously with the two appeals vide order dated 01.09.2015, hearing whereof was already in progress on the aforesaid two questions. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Farooq Mohammad Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2015
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. This petition originally filed at Gwalior Bench (numbered as W.P. No.929/2015),has been placed before us pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.8.2015. The learned Single Judge has referred the matter by framing following question:- Whether the Division Bench decision in the case of Awadh Behari Pandey V. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in 1969 JLJ 144= 1968 MPLJ 638was correct to the extent of holding the provision of Sec. 56(3) of M.P. Municipalities Act 1961 as mandatory to the extent of vitiating the duly held elections to the office of Vice President despite the petitioner not only participating but also contesting the election without demur. 2. The relevant facts for considering the above said question are as follows: That the general elections to the Municipality Council Chanderi, District Ashoknagar was concluded by issuance of notification under Section 45 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 1961 (hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Singh alias Mangu and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2015
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. These matters have been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the reference made by the Division Bench in the respective writ petitions. 2. The first reference was made in Writ Petition No. 2689/2013 filed by Kheri Gurjar before the Bench at Gwalior (now renumbered as Writ Petition No. 13989/2015 at Jabalpur) vide order dated 05.09.2013. The judges of the Division Bench differed in their views, as a result of which reference to the third Judge became necessary. The question formulated by the Bench reads thus:- "Whether, after considering the provision of Section 5(A) of National Security Act and judgment of this Court in Haji Abdul Rajjak v. State of M.P. and Others 2012 (5) M.P.H.T. 111 (DB), the detention order of the competent authority passed under the N.S.A. Act can be set-aside on the basis of earlier view held in this Court's judgment reported as Tasildar Singh v. State of M.P. and Others 2011 (1) M.P.H.T. 513 (DB) wherein, the provision of Section 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Anita Mishra Vs. Arun Kumar and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2015
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by order dt. 24/8/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narsingarh, Distt. Rajgarh in Cr. Rev. No. 195 / 2012, by which the revisional Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 29/7/2011. Facts of the case reveal that a complaint was preferred u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by respondent No.2 against the present petitioner on 2/7/2007. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsingarh sentenced the petitioner for six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,30,000/- was imposed against which an appeal was preferred ie., No. 231/2007 and a settlement took place between the parties in Lok Adalat on 25/7/2008. Both the parties agreed to withdraw the pending litigations and in terms of the settlement a condition of payment of Rs.3,51,750/- by cheque dt. 31/12/2008 of State Bank of India, Shujalpur Branch was give...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›