Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)MPHT242; 2001(2)MPLJ419
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Shri Chandra Bhan Singh and Shri Rao Khetsingh were elected members of Zila Panchayat, Damoh. Election of President, Zila Panchayat, Damoh was held on March 1, 2000 in which they contested against each other. Polling was followed by counting of votes. Shri Chandra Bhan Singh was declared elected and granted certificate to that effect under Rule 17 of the M.P. Panchayat (Up-Sarpanch, President, Vice-President) Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (hereafter for short 'the Rules of 1995'). Shri Rao Khetsingh immediately approached the Election Tribunal and obtained stay against issuance of notification under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1995. The Election Tribunal entertained the election petition and stayed issuance of notification. Finally, the election of ShriChandra Bhan Singh was set aside. This order of Election Tribunal, passed at the instance of Shri Rao Khctsingh has been challenged through Writ Petition No. 2349 of 2000 by Shri Chandra Bhan Singh.2. The substance of chal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ792
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioners herein have been convicted for offences including the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They submitted applications through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, praying for release on licence under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, for short, the Act' and Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964, for short, the 'Rules'. The State Government rejected the applications on consideration of the views of the Probation Board which acted on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. The respective orders of the State Government are under challenge in these cases.2. In Misc. Civil Case No. 47 of 1988, State v. Chandersingh and Anr. of the Indore Bench of the High Court, the Court took the view that an application for release has to be disposed of on consideration of the applicants' antecedents only prior t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ284
ORDERT.N. Singh, J. 1. Two unsuccessful candidates have joined hands in this petition challenging the election held for the Office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mohana, the result of which was declared on 6-2-1989 in favour of respondent No. 4, Chhote Singh son of Mangal Singh. When the petition was admitted, care was taken to limit the scope of controversy to the question whether the election process as a whole was vitiated as a result of the symbol 'Lotus Flower' being printed on the ballot paper resulting in the voters being misguided. Accordingly, we are required to resolve in this matter that controversy only.2. The crucial facts in regard to that controversy are mostly admitted, manifested albeit on the face of Annexure P/1 of the petition and R/1 of the common return of three respondents -- Collector, District Gwalior; Gram Panchayat Mohana, Tahsil Ghatigaon; and the Assistant Returning Officer. The ballot paper used in the election is Annexure P/1 on which 11 different symbols...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)MPLJ592
ORDERA.K. Mathur, C.J.1. All these writ petitions are inter-connected, therefore, they are disposed of by common order.In these writ petitions, the primary question to be considered is whether the Boards of the Co-operative Societies all over the State of Madhya Pradesh, which are continuing without elections, can survive or not. In the Writ Petitions 2924 of 1996 and 3342 of 1996, the challenge was by a writ of quo-warranto, whether the Chairman and the elected Boards can survive without elections for an indefinite period or not. It is significant to point out here that last elections for co-operative societies took place in 1984 and thereafter no elections took place and the elected incumbents of the Co-operative Societies are holding the office of Chairman/Presidents and Board of Directors continuously for one reason or the others.2. In writ petition No. 2924 of 1996, the petitioners have sought a writ of quo-warranto against respondent No.4 Shri Subhash Yadav, President/Chairman of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995CriLJ383
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioners herein have been convicted for offences including the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They submitted applications through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, praying for release on licence under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, for short, the 'Act' and Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964, for short, the 'Rules'. The State Government rejected the applications on consideration of the views of the Probation Board which acted on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. The respective orders of the State Government are under challenge in these cases.2. In Misc. Civil Case No. 47 of 1988 (State v. Chandersingh) of the Indore Bench of the High Court, the Court took the view that an application for release has to be disposed of on consideration of the applicants' antecedents only prior to the commission of the cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ247
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for cancellation of blanket order of bail passed under Section 438 of the Code by Shri Rampal Singh, J. (since retired) as the non-applicant No. 2 apprehended his arrest for several accusations under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The application for cancellation of blanket order of bail was heard by Mr. Justice G. C. Gupta (as he then was), who vide order dated 11-1-1991 cancelled the blanket order of bail. Non-applicant No. 2 approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 706/91, vide order dated 12th November, 1991 setting aside order of cancellation of bail and remitted the case for reconsideration by this Court with a direction that the application for cancellation of bail be assigned by learned Chief Justice to Seniormost Judge available in the High Court (Mr. Justic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(4)MPHT69
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In the course of deciding this writ petition on merits which was filed to assail the 'No Confidence Motion' passed against the petitioner as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Koora, Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra, sitting singly found that in construing the provisions of Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and analogous provisions of the repealed Act as also sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 framed thereunder have been differently construed in several Single Bench decisions of this Court (INFRA) and in these decisions earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Gayasuddin v. Gram Panchayat (1971 JLJ 286) was not noticed, The learned Judge also found that the decision of this Court in Akbar Khan v. S.D.O., Mandleshwar (1997) 2 Vidhi Bhasvar 284] was not noticed in Sharda Bai v. State of M.P. [(1997) 2 MPLJ 291]. The learned Single Judge, therefore has made this reference to the Full Bench for resolving the cleavage of opinions expressed by several...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2096
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for cancellantion of blanket order of bail passed under Section 438 of the Code by Shri Ram Pal Singh. J. (since retired) as the non-applicant No. 2' apprehended his arrest for several accusations under Section 319 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The application for cancellation of blanket order of bail was heard by Mr. Justice G.C. Gupta (as he then was), who vide order dated 11-1-1991 cancelled the blanket order of bail. Nonapplicant No. 2 approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 706/91, vide order dated 12th November, 1991 setting aside order of cancellation of bail and remitted the case for reconsideration by this Court with a direction that the application for cancellation of bail be assigned by learned Chief Justice to Senior most Judge available in the High Court (Mr. Justice R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ770; 2009(1)MPHT269
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-5-2000 passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Sessions Trial No. 192/99, convicting the appellants under Sections 394, 302/34 and 201 of IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine RI for three months each; life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine RI for one year each; and RI of five years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine RI for one month each, respectively with a further stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently, this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by them.2. In brief the case of prosecution is that Subhash Dwivedi lodged a report in Police Station, Sohagi on 11-3-1999 that a dead-body of unknown person is lying nearby the culvert of Jhiria Lad. On the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004MP68
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13-7-2002 of the respondent No. 3 M. P. Electricity Board by which the security deposit of Rs. 52.24 crores made by the petitioner Company has been forfeited and for a direction to the Board to refund this amount to the petitioner.2. It is not in dispute that with the laudable objective of increasing the power supply and to tide over the difficult power situation a decision was taken by the Government to invite private parties for generation of electricity. The petitioner company was amongst others to submit its offer to set up a Thermal Power Plant at Bina in Madhya Pradesh. There was an agreement dated 12-2-1996 (Annexure P-1) between the petitioner and respondent M. P. Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board). This is known as 'Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Clause 8(e) of this Agreement was: 'MPEB shall at all times following the ...
Tag this Judgment!