Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks direction to respondents to finalize the case of pension and pay the arrears of pension w.e.f. 1996 to 2000 and thereafter. The husband of the petitioner was in employment of M.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter shall be referred to as Corporation) and retired from the service w.e.f. 31.12.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation.2. The case of the petitioner is that, the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Schemes framed thereunder is applicable to the Corporation. It is contended that, as per scheme the contributory fund from the share of petitioner's husband was deducted and was deposited with respondent No. 1. It is urged, after death of her husband, petitioner approached the authorities of respondent No. 2, the Corporation, for grant of family pension by submitting an application on 14.4.2004 and despite of repeated efforts made by the petitioner, the respondents did not ext...
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!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- As the question involved in both these petitions are common and challenge is made to an order-dated 29.8.08, passed by the Commissioner Sagar Division, pertaining to appointment of Panchayat Karmi to Gram Panchayat Kishanpura under Janpad Panchayat Shahgarh in Tehsil Banda, District Sagar, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2- Facts that have come on record, on a perusal of the original records produced by Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, indicates that in pursuance to the policy of the State Government dated 19.7.2007, available in the record of W.P.No.10886/2008 as Annexure P/3, the Collector concerned issued instructions to the Gram Panchayat for appointment of a Panchayat Karmi. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued and on the basis of the same three persons applied. They were Shri Munnalal Lodhi - respondent No.7 in W.P.No.10886/08 and petitioner in W.P.No.12755/08; Smt. Pratibha Yadav petitioner in W.P.No.10886/08 and responden...
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. 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. 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 first appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 11/12/2001 passed in Hindu Marriage Case No.19A/1998 by the Second Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad by which the application filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1955') was dismissed.2. It is admitted that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent took place on 16/2/1997 at Itarsi. They lived at Itarsi for two months after their marriage. Thereafter the respondent visited to the appellant's house in the month of April, 1997 after her short stay of few days at her parents' house. In her second visit she lived upto July, 1997.3. The appellant has filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 before the trial Court on the ground that, in July, 1997 the respondent left the house of the appellant to perform the ceremony of Raksha Bandhan and thereafter she did not come back. Her behaviour with the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Petitioner by way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legal tenability of the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Maihar, District Satna in Civil Suit No. 6A/2007; whereby application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking replacement of the entire written statement filed by him was rejected.2. The petitioner is defendant No. 2 in a suit filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff. The suit is for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of suit property which is a house situated in Ward No. 12, Satna Road over a land bearing number 14/4/4 admeasuring 30 x 58 = 1740 sq.ft.3. On being noticed in the suit, petitioner/defendant No. 2 entered his appearance through one Counsel Shri Arjun Singh and filed the written statement duly verified by him. The said written statement contained signature of the petitioner on each page of it. Thereafter, the Trial Court f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. By means of this petition filed as public interest litigation the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 acquiring the business of the respondent No.2 under Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as `the 1955 Act'] after declaring Sub-Section (13) of Section 35 of the 1955 Act as partially ultra vires and further have prayed for staying the proceedings pertaining to acquisition of the State Bank of Indore by the State Bank of India under the aforesaid provision vide letter dated 20-6-2009, Annexure-P/1.2. Admitted facts for adjudication of the issues involved in this petition which lie in a narrow compass, are that the respondent No.2 which initially was Bank of Indore Limited was subsequently under the provisions contained in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 [for brevity `the 1959 Act'] which came into force with effect from 10-9-1959, was constituted as a new bank, i.e., State Bank of Indore und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. As common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in the instant writ petitions and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.2. For the sake of convenience W.P.No.4856/2006 is taken as a leading case and its facts are being referred to. The petitioners of the said writ petition are registered trade unions of Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the SPM'). The SPM was set up in the year 1967 by the Union of India and has workforce of more than 2000 employees. It is under the administrative control of Ministry of Finance, Union of India. There are nine industrial units of the Government of India for minting coins and printing currency notes, namely, (i) India Government Mint, Noida, (ii) India Government Mint, Kolkata, (iii) India Government Mint, Hyderabad, (iv) India Government Mint, Mumbai, (v) Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, (vi) Bank Note Press, ...
Tag this Judgment!