Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: madhya pradesh Page 11 of about 31,311 results (0.190 seconds)

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Ram Swaroop Pathak Vs. State of M.P.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. This Appeal is preferred by the accused/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.5.2010 passed by the 6 th ADJ, Chhatarpur in S.T.No.240/09. By the impugned judgment, the trial judge convicted the appellant for commission of offence under section 376,and 506-B of the IPC with direction to undergo for RI 10 years in the first count while RI three year in the last count. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix was a student of Class-8th of Middle School, Nathpur in which appellant was the teacher. He had been teaching English. On 6.8.09, at about 12.30, prosecutrix was alone in her house. Her father had gone to his field. Appellant came to the house of the prosecutrix and asked her to take money of the milk. Thereafter, he had taken her to the Bagar house and locked the door from inside and tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, he laid a bed-sheet and the prosecutrix on the floor, stripped himself and the prosecutrix and committed rape with her. She had...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2015 (HC)

M.P. Oil Extraction Limited Vs. State Trading Corporation of India and ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.11.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.41-A/2001. 2. On 07.01.1998, the appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent no.2 as Contract No. TIA 180047 for supply of Indian Toasted Soyabean Extraction FAQ of about 2100/2200 MTS at the Seller s option for delivery in January 1998. On 09.01.1998, the aforesaid Contract was amended and it was converted into a Tripartite Agreement. In this contract, the appellant was relegated as the Supplier and the respondent no.2 was relegated as the Seller. A copy of the addendum has been filed as (Annexure-A-3) along with the appeal of memo. It is mentioned in the addendum that this addendum forms an integral part of the above Contract, all other terms and conditions remain unchanged. 3. On 10.01.1998, the appellant raised an invoice on the respondent No.1 under Contract No.TIA 180047 for goods supplied to it valued at Rs. 1,71,58,008/-. The respondent No.1 made a payment of Rs.1,52...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2015 (HC)

Suresh Yadav and Others Vs. Virendra Kumar Yadav and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. This order will govern the disposal of Civil Revision No.240/2010 and Civil Revision No.242/2010. For the purposes of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Revision No.200/2010. Since the facts of these three Civil Suits are almost similar and on the common grounds, the applications made by the applicant under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) were rejected by the trial Court, the controversy being the same, by this common order all the Civil Revisions are being disposed of. 2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a suit claiming inter alia the reliefs to the effect of declaration of their title on the suit land and declaration that the agreement dated 7.7.1997 is null and void and the agreement executed by the defendant No.1/applicant on 20.6.2000, was not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1/applicant mainly on the ground that earlier a suit was filed by one Amar Singh, so...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2015 (HC)

I.C.I.C.I. Lumbard General Insurance Company and Others Vs. Shanti and ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. This judgment shall govern disposal of M.A. Nos. 647/2009, 648/2009, 649/2009, 650/2009, 651/2009, 753/2009, 757/2009, 768/2009, 769/2009 and 778/2009 as all these ten appeals have been filed under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the common award dated 16/1/2009 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in claim case No.62/2007 (Smt. Babli and Ors. Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.), 59/2007 (Smt. Shanti and Ors. Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.), 61/2007 (Smt. Munni and Ors.Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.), 60/2007 (Smt. Ramwati and Ors. Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.) and 36/2008 (Madhosingh Vs. Ramvaran and Ors.). 2. M.A.Nos. 647/2009, 648/2009, 649/2009, 650/2009 and 651/2009 have been filed by Insurance Company assailing impugned awards on the premise of breach of policy whereas M.A.Nos. 753/2009 has been filed by injured Madhosingh for enhancement of impugned award. Madhosingh was awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,519/- for the fractures sustained by him. M.A.Nos...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2015 (HC)

Hari Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India

Court : Madhya Pradesh

This matter was taken up yesterday i.e. 24.02.2015, on which date, the respondent No.5 had opposed the prayer made by the petitioner for listing the petition on some other date and had also prayed for vacating the interim order. In view of the opposition of the private respondent No.5, the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.5, who had appeared in person, agreed to argue the matter today personally by discharging their Advocates. The parties were informed of the consequences of discharging their Advocates and also informed that later on they would not be at liberty to take up the plea of rehearing of the petition on account of absence of the Advocates. The parties have understood the implications of the said discharge and have agreed to argue the matter personally. On the request of the petitioner and respondent No.5, their respective Advocates namely Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari and Shri Vijay Shukla are hereby discharged. The petitioner and respondent No.5 are heard in person...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2015 (HC)

Sakshi Bhardwaj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner submits that since her Advocate has expressed inability to appear before this Court today but in view of the urgency, she has decided to discharge her Advocate and argue the case herself. The petitioner was informed that once the matter is argued on merits she may have to take the consequences of the arguments advanced before the Court and later on will not be permitted to approach the Court for re-hearing of the case on the ground that the Advocate engaged by her was not present or heard by the Court. She has accepted this condition. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to discharge her Advocate and argue the petition in person. Heard on admission. The petitioner, who had appeared in the LL.B. 3rd Semester Examination held by the respondent-University in December 2013, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the result declared by the respondent-University and has prayed for re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the 3rd Semester Examination. It is submitted by the...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2015 (HC)

Vinod Bohare Vs. State of M.P.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. By invoking the supervisory powers of this Court under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 2.2.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.906/2008 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, whereby charge under Section 406 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that petitioner is the Dealer of the tractors. Petitioner sold a tractor of Mahindra Company to complainant Mevalal which was also financed by the petitioner. The loan amount alongwith the interest Rs. 3,21,000/- was to be repaid, but the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- in time. Thereafter, the petitioner took the tractor from the complainant forcibly before four years with cultivator and the same has not been returned till now. It is also alleged that petitioner sold the tractor to another person and committed cheating. Complainant Mevalal Kushwah sent a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Bhind, for taking...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2015 (HC)

M/s. C.E.C. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983 being aggrieved by an award dated 29th October, 2003 passed by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in a proceeding held under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983 (herein after refer to as the Adhiniyam of 1983 ). 2. Facts in brief which are necessary for deciding the issue in question goes to show that the State Government issued a notice inviting tender for the purpose of constructing right and left rockfill dam in the Ban Sagar Project, District Shahdol. Petitioner submitted their offer for both the right and left rockfill dam. Petitioner's tender was accepted and a contract was given to the petitioner for the purpose of right rockfill dam. The contract for left rockfill dam was given to M/s Bihar State Construction Corporation. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.4 on 3.10.1983 and the agreement stipulated conclusion of ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2015 (HC)

Quazi Ziyauddin Vs. M.P. State Election Commission and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

He submits that Advocate engaged by him has expressed inability to appear before the Court due to call given by the Bar Association to boycott this Court. He submits that he may be permitted to discharge his Advocate. He submits that he is compelled to take this step as matter cannot wait any further considering the fact that election is scheduled to be held on 22.02.2015 and if the matter is not heard before that date, the same will become infructuous. On the oral request made by the appellant, Advocate Shri M.K. Agrawal is discharged. Appellant has been informed that once the Court considers the arguments on merits, later on, appellant will not be permitted to file application for rehearing of the case on the ground that on earlier occasion Advocate could not appear in the Court. Appellant has understood the consequences and accepts the position. In view of the above, the matter was proceeded on merits. Now the appellant submits that he may be permitted to take assistance of Shri Qua...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2015 (HC)

Shiv Construction Thru. Shiv Narayan Pathak Vs. Public Works Departmen ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. They are heard. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of order dated 15.09.2014 issued by the respondent No.2. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a contract for construction of high level submersible bridge across river Angrer near Kheda Village for Kheda approach road on Pithampur Kheda Road, District Dhar was awarded to the petitioner @ 1.01% above SOR for road and bridge works issued by EinC, PWD, M.P. and enforce from 15.04.2009 amended upto the date of issue of NIT has been accepted by EinC, PWD, Bhopal on behalf of the Governor of M. P. 3. After signing of agreement, the work order was issued on 12.11.2012. As per work order, the petitioner was to complete the work within 12 months excluding rainy season but the same was not completed and inspite of various notices to carry out the progress in the work, there was no progress in the work in proportion to the time stipulated in the work order and the extent...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //