Court : Madhya Pradesh
N.K. Gupta,J: 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 3.1.2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in ST No.44/2003 whereby they have been convicted of the offences under Section 302/34 and Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 4.8.2002 at about 9:00 PM, victim Gladvin along with his son deceased Gadvin and daughter-in-law Monika (PW-2) was present in his house situated at Deshbanhupura (Police Station Itarsi District Hoshangabad). At about 9:15 PM two patients had knocked the door of victim Gladvin and asked about the address of appellant No.l Mabel Harry. Victim Gladvin gave the address of appellant No.l to those patients. However, after a few minutes, appellant No.l visited the house of victim Gladvin and started quarrelling on the pretext that the complainant had prohi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ. 1. This common judgment is rendered in all these matters, as similar points arise for consideration. Except the suo motu proceedings, Writ Petition No.6385/2014, all other petitions are filed by private persons as Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, praying for a direction to withdraw the investigation of the criminal cases commonly known as PMT VYAPAM Examination Scam cases from the Special Task Force (hereinafter referred to as the "STF") constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh; and instead entrust the same to an independent Investigating Agency, namely, Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI"). This very relief was considered by the Division Bench of this Court (one of us, namely, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice was member of that Bench), in Writ Petition 15186/2013 (Awashesh Prasad Shukla vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and other companion matters, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 16th Apri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This order disposes of a bunch of petitions registered as Writ Petitions No.274/2014, 277/2014, 278/2014, 280/2014, 275/2014, 276/2014 and 279/2014. The issue involved in these petitions is the same. 2. This bunch of petitions involves three different kinds of cases. The first being WP No.274/2014, in which FIR was not only lodged but also filed alongwith the pleadings before the Excise Commissioner for claiming the benefit of proviso to Rule 19 (2) of the M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (for brevity "Rules of 1996"); second category of the cases is WPs No. 277/2014, 278/2014 and 280/2014 where no FIR was produced as the same was not available and instead a certificate issued by the Police Station concerned was brought on record to claim the abovesaid benefit; and the third and last category of the cases is WPs no.275/2014, 276/2014 and 279/2014 where no offence was registered, but the factum of accident of the truck carrying the liquor having taken place was reported to the Police ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Heard on I.A. No. 4630/2013, an application for condonation of delay. 2. There is delay of seven years and 84 days in filing the present review petition. 3. It is pleaded in the application for condonation of delay that an application for compromise was filed on behalf of Municipal Council, however, no permission was taken from the Council in regard to compromise, hence, the Council was not aware about the fact of compromise. The President and CMO of the Council were hand in gloves, they did not inform the Council about the judgment. After seven years, contempt proceedings were initiated and the contempt case was registered as Cont. Case No.497/2013. Thereafter, notices were issued. Council received notice on 27.8.2013, then it came to the knowledge of the Council. Thereafter, certified copy of the judgment was obtained and review petition has been filed. 4. In the present case, there was no permission to enter into compromise by the Municipal Council. Apart from this, by way of com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Rohit Arya, J: 1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 21-12-2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 54A/2013 by X Additional District Judge, Gwalior, District Gwalior affirming the judgment and decree dated 19-8-2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 34A/2009 by V Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code whereby suit of the plaintiff has been decreed as regards 'bona fide need of nonresidential accommodation' as envisaged under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The subject-matter of the suit is a shop situated at Bhonsle Ka Bada, in front of Mrignayan show room, Patankar Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') which was part of the property in dispute. The suit premises was purchased by the plaintiffs/respondents. 3. As per the plaint allegations, the defendant/appellant was occupying the suit premises as te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P.2015/2014 Writ Petition No.2015/2014 06.02.2014 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for State of Madhya Pradesh on advance notice. Heard on admission. Communication dated 30.11.2013 by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Rewa; whereby, the petitioners have been informed as to reasons why they are not eligible for being appointed as Pharmacist (contractual) has been assailed. The petitioners also seek quashment of select list dated 31.07.2013 and for direction to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment as Pharmacist (contractual).Relevant facts in nutshell are that the applications were invited on 26.12.2012 for appointment as Pharmacists, Data Entry Operators and Support Staff on contract basis in National Rural Health Mission from the persons having requisite qualification. The last date for submitting the applications was 15.01.2013. The petitioners though Diploma/Degree in Pharmacy were not registe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
---1--- W.P.No.1882/2014 (PIL) 31.1.2014 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Not on Board; taken up upon Mention Memo. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. None appears for private contesting respondents. Prima facie, we are in agreement with the stand taken by the petitioner and duly supported by the State Government that the members of Respondents No.6 and 7 and members of other Associate Medical Unions, cannot be allowed to resort to strike as per the Code of Ethics and Regulations and, more particularly, because the State Government has already invoked provisions of the Essential Service of Maintenance Act, 1981. We will only remind the said respondents and all medical officers attached to the concerned hospitals and Medical Colleges about the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of T.K.Rangarajan versus Government of Tamil Nadu and ORS.- AIR2003SC3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
[1]. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Arbitration Appeal No.3/2008 1. ANSALDO Energia, S.P.A., A Company duly organized and existing under the Laws of Italy with its Principal Office located in via N. Lorenzi, 8, 16152, Geneva, Italy.2. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, (Formerly known as ANSALDO Services Private Limited), having its Registered Office at No.50/1, Residence Road, Third Floor, Gupta Tower, Bangalor025. ..........APPELLANTS Versus 1. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, Through its Secretary, Shakti Bhawan, Nayagaon, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. M.P. Power General Co. Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Nayagaon, Jabalpur (M.P.) ..........RESPONDENTS Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J.Hon. Smt. Justice Vimla Jain ___________________________________________________________________ Shri S.U. Kamdar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Nahoush Shah, Shri Manot Sharma and Shri Alok Hoonka, Advocates for the appellants. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 S.A No.111/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.111/1996 APPELLANTS : SITARAM DUBEY (Since deceased) SMT. GEETA DUBEY (Legal Representatives) AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENTS : MANAKLAL (Since deceased) SMT. RAINA BAI (Legal Representatives) AND OTHERS Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellants : Shri T. S. Ruprah, Senior Counsel with Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Manot Sanghi and Shri Sankalp Sanghi, Advocates. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (02/05/2013) The appellants/defendants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1995 passed by the IXth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.20-A/95 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1984 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Patan, District Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No.15- A/1983 has been set aside and reversed and the suit filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 Writ Appeal No.156/2013 27.02.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with Shri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5. None for respondents No.6, 7 and 8. With consent the appeal is heard finally. This Intra-Court Appeal under Section 2(1) of The M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, at the instance of Gram Panchayat Chourahi is directed against order dated 29.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.3441/2010 (s) whereby while relying on the decision in Lalla Prasad Burman v. State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.2008 (3) MPLJ 39 and Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhargura Khurd v. Santosh Singh & ORS.2010 (4) 2 MPLJ 41 and by setting aside the order of removal dated 25.04.2009 passed by Gram Panchayat against respondent No.1, Panchayat Karmi, which was as per stipulation in Panchayat Karmi Yojna brought in vogue b...
Tag this Judgment!