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. 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- 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. 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. 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. Petitioner calls in question the correctness of order dated 23.2.2010; whereby the petitioner a Senior Lab Technician, Medicine Department, Gandhi Medical College is being retired on attaining the age of 62 years on superannuation. The order is being questioned on the anvil that the petitioner has been discriminated with the member of M.P Medical Education (Gazetted) Service, appointed to medical teacher post for whom the age of retirement has been enhanced to 65 years by virtue of Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhyadesh 2007. It is urged that, the petitioner who belonged to the cadre of teacher is being discriminated in respect of retirement age. Admittedly Adhyadesh 2007 ushered in various amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam 1967 Section 3 whereof provides for:" 3.Amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 as substituted by Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Act No.29 of 1967-In section 2 of the Principal Act, in Rule 56 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The reference has been made by learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.3.2010. Following question has been referred for consideration :"Whether the view of the learned Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Mohan @ Munna Pachauri (Supra) that the period spent for obtaining certified copy of ex-parte decree cannot be excluded for calculating the limitation under Article 123 of the Limitation Act is the correct view or the earlier contrary view of the Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Shakuntala Singh (supra) is correct ?2. The petitioner has filed an eviction suit against respondents/defendants. In the said Civil Suit, summons were duly served upon the defendants. Defendants appeared before the Trial Court, written statement was also filed. As the rent was not deposited, an application under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was filed. The Trial Court ultimately ordered striking-off the defence of defendants/tenants. Thereafter, defendants were pro...
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!