Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Since both the above appeals arise out of common impugned judgment, this judgment shall govern disposal of both the appeals.2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.31/2004, whereby the each appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and inflicted sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default each of the appellants has to undergo additional imprisonment for three months. This criminal appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.31/2004 for enhancement of the sentence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondents against them under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'). In the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the proceedings for execution of the order passed by the respondent No. 3, Collector and taken up by the respondent No.4, Tahsildar, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are contrary to law and the procedure prescribed therein and in such circumstances, the impugned order be quashed. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 has no power or authority to take up proceedings by way of entertaining the application. It is submitted that the petitioners have negotiated with the President of the respondent-bank who has agreed to permit the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
(1) This order shall govern in all the above referred link cases.(2) Petitioners have prayed to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2021/2003 pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Burhanpur, arising out of Crime No. 120/2000 registered by PS-City Kotwali, District-Burhanpur.(3). It is an admitted fact that Subrato Roy ( petitioner in M.Cr.C.No. 9421/2007) was posted as Incharge-Chief Engineer at Bhopal, Ram Kumar Maitra (petitioner in M.Cr.C.No.9424/2007) was also posted as Chief Engineer, Bhopal. V.K.Vaishnav (petitioner in M.Cr.C.No. 11602/07) was Executive Engineer at Regional Office, Indore, Harish Bagwaiya (petitioner in M.Cr.C.7672/08) was Assistant Engineer at Regional Office, Indore, and N.K. Jain (petitioner in M.Cr.C.No.11603/07) was Secretary of the Mandi Samiti, Burhanpur at the time of alleged incident.(4) The instant matters arise out of Resolution dated 1.10.96 passed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Burhanpur. The Mandi Samiti resolved to construct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Petitioner, which is a forum of retired IAS, IPS officers and other eminent citizens of State of Madhya Pradesh, through this public interest litigation has challenged the validity of section 23-A of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, as amended by Amendment Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as well as notifications dated 14.3.2008 and 05.9.2007, Annexures-P-1 and P-2 respectively, issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 23-A of the Act. By the impugned notifications the land use of various sites in the city of Bhopal has been changed from public/semi public purpose to commercial in order to facilitate the construction of Five Star Hotel, a Commercial Complex and an Oceanarium on lands measuring 10.19 acres over Khasra Nos.1431 and 1432 which situate adjacent to Minto Hall and for the construction of Central Business District on land measuring 15 acres in and around South T.T. Nagar Market surrounding area, which is pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 31.7.1995 in Civil Suit No. 85-A of 1995 passed by 9th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by which the plaintiffs have been declared to be the owners of the house in dispute and defendants have been directed to pay mesne profits of Rs. 2,200/- per month to plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 and 3 to 13 have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. It is not in dispute that Dwarkadas Bhatia was the owner of House situated at Lordganj, Jabalpur. The plaintiffs are his heirs. It was a big house. It is not disputed that house of Dwarkadas Bhatia was auctioned in two parts; one part in Civil Suit No. 39-B/48, which was purchased by Gyanchand on 27.6.1951, sale was confirmed on 18.10.1951 and thereafter, sale certificate was issued on 16.1.1952 by First Civil Judge Class II, Jabalpur. Second part of the house was auctioned on 16.11.1953, sale was confirmed on 24.3.1954 and thereafter sale certificate was issued in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Heard on admission. Challenge put-forth in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 29.10.2009/11.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner has been issued with a charge-sheet, whereby the petitioner has been charged of financial embezzlement of Rs.3,84,700/- and of an act unbecoming of a government servant, violating Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii) and Rule 3 (2) (ii) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter shall be referred to as Conduct Rules of 1965). Facts giving rise to initiation of a departmental enquiry was with first information report lodged on 12.6.2008 by one Chandrabhan Kulhade, Court Superintendent of District Consumer Forum, Seoni. The report was initially lodged against one Rajkumar Rai, Farrash at District Consumer Forum, Seoni alleging that a sum of Rs.3,84,700/- has been drawn from the Bank by putting forged signature. On the basis of said report a crime was registered for offences under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- Petitioner, who has retired from the post of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, has filed this writ petition challenging the order-dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure P/10) by which refixation of pay has been ordered and certain benefits of pay fixation earlier granted on promotion to the post of Dy. Chief Executive Officer, are withdrawn and recovery ordered.2- Facts indicate that petitioner was initially appointed as LDC on 1.9.1968 in Municipal Council, Pipariya, where he worked upto 1982. In the meanwhile, in the year 1976 when Special Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'SADA'), Pachmarhi was constituted, the limit of this authority was extended to the area coming under Municipal Council Pipariya. Accordingly on the basis of the application submitted, petitioner's services were absorbed in SADA, Pachmarhi and petitioner was transferred to SADA, Pachmarhi in the capacity of Head Clerk. This fact is not in dispute. Vide order-dated 24.12.1982 Annexure P/1, two posts of Deput...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- Challenging the orders Annexure P/1 and P/2, by which promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner Excise is granted to respondent No.3, superseding the petitioner and the order seeking suo motu review of a departmental proceeding closed against the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.2- Petitioner was initially appointed as a District Excise Officer on 1.9.1999. He claims to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community. In the year 2005, while petitioner was posted as District Excise Officer, Mandsaur a show-cause notice was issued to him on 5.11.2008, pointing out various irregularities in the matter of recovery of revenue. Petitioner is alleged to have filed reply denying the allegations. However, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 3.3.2006, to which the petitioner submitted his reply and pointed out his defence. Being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority exonerated the petitioner of all the charges an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Shri D.K.Tripathi, counsel for petitioner. Shri Harish Agnihotri, G.A., for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Vivek Mourya, counsel for respondent no.4. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition :- "[1] To call for entire relevant record.[1(a)] To declare the Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sansthan (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk KaNirdharan) Adhiniyam 2007, Act no.21 of 2007" is unconstitutional.[2] To declare the Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Under Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 is unconstitutional.[3] To direct the respondents to permit the petitioner as open + freedom fighter category in the counseling and the same allot a seat of M.B.B.S., in any private medical college.[4] To pass such any other order as deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.[5] Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may ...
Tag this Judgment!