Court : Madhya Pradesh
Alok Verma, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2014 passed by the Chief Engineer and the appellate authority - respondent No.1 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P/10) passed by Managing Director of respondent No.1 (Annexure P/7) whereby the Managing Director forfeited the security deposit submitted by the petitioner and also claimed damages and compensation for the breach of contract by the petitioner, and also the petitioner was prohibited to participate in tender process of works of respondent No.1 for a period of 5 years. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a reputed and experienced Civil Engineer Contractor and doing the construction and maintenance works of civil engineering since last 25 years. He has been undertaking construction and maintenance works on contract with the State Government and other undertakings and is registered as "A-5" Class Contractor with Public Works Department, Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This appeal is filed under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity, the 'Act') challenging the orders dated 2.9.2013 and 20.9.2013, passed by the Company Law Board (CLB), Mumbai in Company Petition No. 50/2012. 2. It is contended by the appellants that the respondents/petitioners filed a Contempt Petition No. 397/398 of the Act seeking certain reliefs. The present appellants filed their reply and raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the petition. The appellants also filed an application under Regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 (for brevity, the 'Regulation') on maintainability of the petition. This application was registered as CA No. 206/2012. This application is filed as Annexure A/2. The Company Board in its proceedings dated 21.2.2013 recorded that "CA No. 206/2012 on maintainability of company petition mentioned by the respondents, petitioners to reply within two weeks thereafter. Adjourned to 2.4.2013 at 2.30 pm for argumen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved order dated 19.07.2013, passed in MJC No. 76/2012, by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, whereby the Family Court allowing the application filed by the respondents passed the order of maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/son. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.11.2005 the marriage was solemnized between the applicant and respondent No.1 at Nagpur according to Hindu customs. Out of this wedlock, respondent No.2 son was born on 26.11.2007. After marriage, the applicant and his parents were maltreated the respondent No.1and also demanded money from her parents and brother. On 22.01.2012 the father of the applicant harassed the respondent No.1 for dowry demand and also beaten her and ousted her from the matrimonial house and threatened to kill her. Since...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
C.V. Sirpurkar, J. 1. In this criminal appeal challenge is made to the judgment dated 22.09.1999 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Chachora, Camp Guna, Shri S.R. Nag in Session Trial No. 123/1998, whereby learned Additional Session Judge had convicted and sentenced appellants Lallu Singh and Prakash Singh as follows: Name of the appellantProvision of the IPCSentence of ImprisonmentSentence of the fineSentence imprisonment in default of finePrakash Singh302/34Life imprisonmentRs. 5000/-Rigorous 37610 yearsRs. 2000/-Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year 2013 yearsRs. 1000/-Rigorous imprisonment for 6 monthsLallu Singh302/34Life imprisonmentRs. 5000/Rigorous imprisonment for 2 yearsLallu Singh37610 yearsRs. 2000/-Rigorous imprisonment for 1 yearLallu Singh2013 yearsRs. 1000/-Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months 2. The sentences under aforesaid provisions were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone by each of them during investigation, inquiry and trial was to be adj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by third Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Case No. 26A/13. 2. The respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction (Annexure P-2). Admittedly, the said suit was filed on the basis of the Special Act, i.e., M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (Act of 51). In the course of proceedings, the present petitioner/defendant No.2 filed an application under Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-4). In the said application, it is contended that the learned District Judge has issued a distribution memo for the year 2013-2014 and 2015. As per memo, cases under the Special Acts needs to be heard only by the District and Sessions Judge, Vidisha. On the basis of aforesaid stand, it is contended by the petitioner that this fact was suppressed by the plaintiff and the suit was directly filed before the Court of Additional District Judge. It is contended that as per the M.P. Public Trus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. The singular question involved in this petition is whether the certified copy of documents obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, the 'Act of 2005') can be admitted as secondary evidence ? 2. The defendant No.1 preferred an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act before the court below. It is contended in the said application that the petitioner/defendant No.1 has obtained certified copies of map of the house and building construction permission from the Nagar Nigam. These documents are obtained under the Act of 2005 and, therefore, the same be accepted as secondary evidence. 3. The court below by order dated 4.12.2014 allowed the said application preferred under Section 65 of the Evidence Act (Annexure P/4) dated 22.9.2014. Criticising this order, Shri Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the documents obtained under the Act of 2005 do not fall within the ambit of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the same cannot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the relief in the form of direction against the respondent No.1, Hinduja Leyland Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-company) for release of the Excavator Machine on supardgi subject to payment of necessary dues regularly on monthly instalments and further relief incorporated by way of amendment vide order dated 03/02/2014 in the form of direction to newly added respondents' No.3 and 4 to take action and register criminal case against the respondent No.2 and his companions on the basis of complaints made by the petitioner with further direction to respondent No.4 to give possession of the Machine in question to the petitioner forthwith. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that petitioner had approached respondent- company, a finance company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 for purchase of new Hyundai R215 LC-7 Excavator Mac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
01. Being aggrieved by impugned order dated 27/01/2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No.10/2014, the accused/applicant has filed this petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 here-in-after in short "the Code". 02. The learned trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application filed under Section 311 of the Code for recalling the prosecutrix (PW/2) for her cross examination. 03. The case of the prosecution has portrayed on the paper that porsecutrix (PW/2) lodged a report on 25/3/2014 that applicant had committed rape with her before three months. An offence under Sections 376, 450 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide crime No.223/14 has been registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation, the applicant is charge sheeted 04. Learned Special Judge framed the charge under Section 376, 450 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23.5.1996 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khandwa in Special Case No.27/95, whereby the appellants have been convicted of offence under Section 147 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (xv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as 'the Special Act') and sentenced to six months R.I. on each count. 2. The prosecution's case in short is that the complainant Om Prakash (PW-2) was resident of village Gandhwa (Police Station Piplod, District Khandwa). He had constructed a hutment on a disputed land since last 12-13 years. On 9.6.1995 at about 8:00 a.m., the appellants gathered at the spot having various arms in their hands and started destroying the house of the complainant. They uttered filthy abuses as well as abuses dependent upon the caste of the complainant. When the complainant and his wife Vandana (PW-3) had tried to prohibi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Heard. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered as Crime No. 183/2013 at Police Station Mungawali for offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows:- Respondent No. 2 - Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on information received through informer that a vehicle Metador bearing registration No. MP09-GF-8487 was carrying surreptitiously wheat and rice which are food items of the Public Distribution System for illegal means, he along with staff intercepted the vehicle. The vehicle contained 103 bags of wheat and 27 bags of rice, which were food articles for Public Distribution to poor persons in subsidised rates. The vehicle and the articles were seized under Section 3/7 of "the Act". FIR under challenged was lodged on 04.08.2013 against the driver Arif Khan and cleaner Shabbir. During the investigation, memorand...
Tag this Judgment!