Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 19.8.2014, whereby the petitioners were held to be disqualified for membership of the committee. The consequential order of the same date, Annexure P-1, is also called in question, whereby it was held that the elected Board of Directors has ceased to function for want of quorum. Accordingly, in place of Board of Directors, an Administrator is appointed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner-Board was constituted for five years pursuant to an election held on 4.4.2008. The term of the Board was five years, i.e., up to 3.4.2013. Before the Board could complete its tenure, it was suspended on 9.12.2009. This suspension order was challenged before this Court in WP No. 4536/2011. The Division Bench by order dated 30.1.2014 (Annexure P/4) set aside the said suspension order. The said order of this Court was unsuccessfully put to test before the Apex Court in SLP No.10826/2014. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Rejection of application seeking amendment in the application for setting aside Arbitration Award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'AC Act') by order dated 14.2.2014 by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Bhopal has led the objector to an Award file this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Undisputed facts borne from the record are that a contract for consultancy and its implementation services for third party evaluation and quality control/assurance for construction of building costing about Rs.75,372.31 lakh in accordance with specifications and relevant I.S. Codes using funds provided by Rajya Shiksha Kendra Bhopal was entered into between the petitioner and respondent on 29.1.2007. 3. That, on there being certain allegations of contractor entering into certain unlawful activities in respect of payment of first and second bills, an enquiry was caused. Pending the outcome of said enquiry, respondent-contra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Difference of opinion as to whether an order dated 18.11.2011 passed in W.P. No.14740/2008 : Ashok Kumar vs State of M.P. and others and the batch of writ petitions, viz. W.P. No.1796/2007, 3437/2007, 3804/2007, 3822/2007, 8611/2008 and 14738/2008 could be reviewed for the reasons mentioned in Review Petitions : R.P. No. 124/2012 and R.P. 306/2012, has paved the path for laying the matter before this Court for an opinion as to "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the review petitions are to be allowed or dismissed". 2. The writ petition called in question the validity of provisions of the Court Fee (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2008 in so far as it substitutes Article 11 a(i) in the second schedule appended to the Court Fee Act, 1870, stipulating "(ii) In article 11, for clause (a) and entry relating thereto, the following clause and entries relating thereto shall be substituted, namely : (a) when presented to the High Court (i) by the claimant for enhance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on caveat. 2. Since the affected party is already represented, the matter is finally heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Order dated 27-9-2014 passed by M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Vide impugned order, a Revision preferred under section 77(14) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 1960 Act) filed by respondent No. 2-Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. against the order dated 15-9-2014 passed by Additional Registrar (Judicial), Co-operative Societies, Bhopal has been allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 5. That, before Additional Registrar (Judicial), petitioner while invoking powers under 80-A of the 1960 Act sought quashment of order dated 23-8-2014 passed by Registering Officer appointed by the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. Parties were heard on IA No. 2952/2014, an application filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 81 (3) read with Section 86 of Representation of The People Act, 1951 (for brevity, the 'RP Act') for dismissing the petition, IA No. 2953/2014, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC read with Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for dismissing the election petition and IA No. 3224/2014, another application filed under Section 81(3) read with Section 86 of the RP Act. 2. The petitioner, a member of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), submitted his nomination to contest the State Legislative Assembly Election of 2013. The nomination form was submitted for Constituency No. 11, Lahar district Bhind. The respondent No. 5 also submitted his nomination form with requisite affidavit for contesting the election. The nomination form and affidavit of respondent No. 5 was scrutinized by the officers of the Election Commission. The petitioner submitted his objection against the nomination form a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 31.5.2012 whereby application for amendment preferred by the petitioner/employer is rejected by the Labour Court. 2. The services of the respondent were terminated by the petitioner Army Public School. The respondent raised an industrial dispute which, in turn, was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government. The respondent filed its statement of claim before the Labour Court. In turn, the employer filed his written statement. Thereafter, when matter was at the stage of evidence, the employer filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-8) on 25.12.2011. It was opposed by workman by filing reply. By impugned order, the said application is rejected. 3. The Labour Court rejected the application by holding that the amendment is filed after commencement of trial and, therefore, it cannot be allowed. It is further held that if averments of amendment application are accepted, it wil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The applicant was convicted for commission of offence under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954") vide judgment dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 127/1991 and sentenced with six months' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-. In Criminal Appeal No. 32/2000, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa vide judgment dated 8.6.2000 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, this criminal revision is preferred by the applicant. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 12.10.1990 the Food Inspector Ramsevak Mishra (PW-1) along with the flying squad went to the Tail Ghani (small scale oil mill) of the applicant, situated at Shivpuri Mohalla Mundi Tahsil Khandwa. At about 10:15 AM he found that in two drums the applicant had collected 200 kg groundnut oil. The Food Inspector proposed to take the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
S.C. Sharma, J: 1. The petitioners before this Court have filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the alleged action of the Indian Army in closing / obstructing the alleged road which is adjoining to the defence land and the land belonging to the petitioners. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that they have purchased land vide registered sale deeds dt. 8/5/07 and 14/2/08 bearing Survey No. 864 admeasuring 0.715 hectares and 0.143 hectares respectively in village Telikhedi, Mhow, Distt. Indore. The adjoining land belongs to the Indian Army (Army Golf Club) situated in GLR Survey No. 168. It has been further stated that the Army Authorities in the year 1983 in order to utilise the land in question have entered into a lease agreement with the predecessor in title and a small culvert was also constructed to provide free access for the golfers on the land in question across river Gambhir. The lease deed was later on extended in the year 1998. In the month of April, 2008 the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 20.8.2010 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sidhi in Special Case No. 13/2007 whereby the application filed by the complainant under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicant and complainant, the applicant has been acquitted to the charge under Section 341, 294 of the IPC only, however, the application to compound the offence under Section 324 of the IPC has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that complainant Mudrika Prasad Prajapati lodged a report against the applicant on 24.11.2006 regarding wrongful restraint, using filthy language and causing simple injuries by sharp edged weapon. After registration of Crime, during investigation it was found that the complainant was humiliated during the incident by the applicant by using ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.A.F.R. Judge M.Cr.C.No.1830/2012 Amitesh Tyagi and others VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh and another --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Priyankush Jain, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Advocate for the respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 21st day of January, 2014) The applicants have preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the registration of crime No.9/2010 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal on the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC.2. The prosecutions case, in short, is that, the complainant Shweta Sharma was married to Amitesh Tyagi on 11.11.20...
Tag this Judgment!