Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: madhya pradesh Page 2 of about 31,311 results (0.185 seconds)

Oct 07 2015 (HC)

Sarika Vs. Women and Child Development Department

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 06/09/2014 by which the petitioner's services has been put to an end. 2. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker on 22/10/2009. She was served with a show cause notice dated 06/09/2014 and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 06/09/2014. 3. The petitioner's contention is that without holding any enquiry as provided under the Scheme relating to the appointment of Anganwadi Workers dated 10/07/2007, the services of the petitioner were put to an end, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State has vehemently argued before this Court that an enquiry took place on 04/09/2014 and based upon the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued on 06/09/2014. Earlier also a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, the services of the petitioner has been put to an ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2015 (HC)

Lawyers for Justice (Non-Government Organization) Vs. State of M.P. an ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming reliefs as under :- "11.1 That, kindly be issued a writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 State to make an enquiry for fixing liability of the concern officers, who are responsible for neglect in official duties and protect the fundamental rights of victim Ramdayal and take appropriate departmental and criminal action against the concern officers. 11.2 That, kindly be issue appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to pay monetary compensation to the family of the victim Ramdayal, who was murdered in state custody. 11.3 That, kindly be issued writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 state to submit a report of action taken by state to this Hon'ble Court. 11.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the fact and circumstances to the petitioner may also kindly be granted." 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are th...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2015 (HC)

Farooq Mohammad Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. This petition originally filed at Gwalior Bench (numbered as W.P. No.929/2015),has been placed before us pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.8.2015. The learned Single Judge has referred the matter by framing following question:- Whether the Division Bench decision in the case of Awadh Behari Pandey V. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in 1969 JLJ 144= 1968 MPLJ 638was correct to the extent of holding the provision of Sec. 56(3) of M.P. Municipalities Act 1961 as mandatory to the extent of vitiating the duly held elections to the office of Vice President despite the petitioner not only participating but also contesting the election without demur. 2. The relevant facts for considering the above said question are as follows: That the general elections to the Municipality Council Chanderi, District Ashoknagar was concluded by issuance of notification under Section 45 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 1961 (hereinafter refe...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2015 (HC)

M/s. Technofab Engineering Limited and Others Vs. Bharat Heavy Electri ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. These matters have been referred by the Division Bench for reconsideration of the principle expounded in the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Fatehchand vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer and others (2009 (4) M.P.L.J 50). 2. The questions to be considered by the Full Bench have been formulated by the Division Bench in F.A. No.514/2012 and F.A. No.1134/2012 vide order dated 28.11.2014, as follows:- 1. Whether the ratio of the decision in Fateh Chand Supra (supra) is correct?2. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bombay vs. M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited, AIR 1960 SC 980 has application to Article 1-A of Schedule I to the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended by Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2008? 3. M.A. No.1774/2011 has been ordered to be heard analogously with the two appeals vide order dated 01.09.2015, hearing whereof was already in progress on the aforesaid two questions. As ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2015 (HC)

Mangal Singh alias Mangu and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. These matters have been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the reference made by the Division Bench in the respective writ petitions. 2. The first reference was made in Writ Petition No. 2689/2013 filed by Kheri Gurjar before the Bench at Gwalior (now renumbered as Writ Petition No. 13989/2015 at Jabalpur) vide order dated 05.09.2013. The judges of the Division Bench differed in their views, as a result of which reference to the third Judge became necessary. The question formulated by the Bench reads thus:- "Whether, after considering the provision of Section 5(A) of National Security Act and judgment of this Court in Haji Abdul Rajjak v. State of M.P. and Others 2012 (5) M.P.H.T. 111 (DB), the detention order of the competent authority passed under the N.S.A. Act can be set-aside on the basis of earlier view held in this Court's judgment reported as Tasildar Singh v. State of M.P. and Others 2011 (1) M.P.H.T. 513 (DB) wherein, the provision of Section 5 ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2015 (HC)

Anita Mishra Vs. Arun Kumar and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by order dt. 24/8/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narsingarh, Distt. Rajgarh in Cr. Rev. No. 195 / 2012, by which the revisional Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 29/7/2011. Facts of the case reveal that a complaint was preferred u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by respondent No.2 against the present petitioner on 2/7/2007. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsingarh sentenced the petitioner for six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,30,000/- was imposed against which an appeal was preferred ie., No. 231/2007 and a settlement took place between the parties in Lok Adalat on 25/7/2008. Both the parties agreed to withdraw the pending litigations and in terms of the settlement a condition of payment of Rs.3,51,750/- by cheque dt. 31/12/2008 of State Bank of India, Shujalpur Branch was give...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2015 (HC)

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sanju Bai and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Oral: 1. This appeal is placed before us pursuant to order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A. No.2508/2007. 2. Indeed, the reference judgment is a common judgment dealing with other Miscellaneous Appeals, but, learned single Judge has disposed of the companion matters and chose to merely refer M.A.No.2508/2007. He has formulated two questions to be referred by the Full Bench. The same read thus: 1. Whether a claim petition is maintainable and the claimants are entitled for compensation where victim himself is the victimizer to avoid the liability? 2. Whether in the claim petition filed by the victim under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, owner/Insurance company is liable to plead and prove that the victim himself was the victimizer to avoid the liability? 3. These questions, in our opinion, have already been answered by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Sinitha and others, reported in 2012 ACJ 1 (SC). In that case, the claim for compe...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2015 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prism Cement Unit

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these 4 appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act by the revenue, they are being disposed off by this common order except the fact that the assessment quarter are different, all other the facts and questions of law are identical. 2. A show cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer to the respondent assessee under Section 201(1) read with 206 C(7) as to why the assessee should not be treated as a defaulter under Section 201(1) on account of the short deduction made on interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act i.e. in the matter of deduction of Tax at source and interest. 3. The Assessing Office found that the respondent assessee has not deducted the interest and TDS for various purchases made for the unit in question the order of assessment was passed and challenging the same appeals were filed before the Commissioner Income Tax Appeal. The Commissioner Income Tax Appeal vide his order dated 19/1...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2015 (HC)

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. M/s. Perfect Sales, Vineet Mark ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

M.C. Garg, J. 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants/state aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2006 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.2B of 2006. whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.3,12,681/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum was decreed. 2. Heard I.A.No.16288 of 2007, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. The appeal is drastically barred by 296 days. 4. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay. The facts as disclosed in the application by the appellant are as under : "(1) That the present First appeal is being preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2006 passed by the Learned trial court namely Fourth Additional Distt. Judge, Gwalior (M.P.). (2) That, the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree ...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2015 (HC)

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M/s. Tirupati Buildcon (P) Ltd.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals filed by the State Government under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, they are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Respondent M/s Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., was granted a contract for the purpose of widening of two lane roads strengthening over various portions of National Highway No.78 on the basis of an agreement entered into between the parties. The agreement in question contemplated a provision for its completion within 12/14 months and it is an admitted position that in Arbitration Appeal Nos.42/2014 and 43/2014, the work was not completed within the stipulated period and therefore, after due approval from the competent authority, extension of time was granted. In Arbitration Appeal No.44/2014 also, the work could not be completed within 12 months. It was completed within a period of 17 months and 27 days and in this case also, approval was granted. For the work done during ...

Tag this Judgment!


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