Madhya Pradesh Court April 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.G. Prayagi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1987MP25; 1987MPLJ76
C.P. Sen, J.1. The petitioner stating to be a tax-payer and citizen of India has filed this petition claiming the following reliefs : --'It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to respondent 1 to remove respondent 2 from the Cabinet, institute an enquiry against, him for the misuse of public funds and powers and further issue a writ of Mandamus to respondent 1 to remove respondent 3 and appoint a suitable senior person, review all promotional cases handled by respondent 2 during his tenure and hold enquiries against the guilty officers. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue such other orders/directions/instructions as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.2. The respondent 1 is the State of M. P., the respondent 2 Cabinet Minister of Public Health and the respondent 3 Engineer-in-chief (E in C) of Public Health Engineering Department (PHE) i.e. Head of that Department. The petitioner's case is that the respondent 2 a...
Kailashchandra Vs. Harbans Singh Chabra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1423
K.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-9-82 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Dhar in Criminal Case No. 499 of 1982 holding that for want of sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of the CrP.C, 1973 (for short 'the Code') cognisance of offences cannot be taken against the non-applicant Harbans Singh Chhabra, Tahsildar Badnawar, District Dhar.2. The circumstances giving rise to the petition are these. The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the non-applicant Harbans Singh and three others for action under the Code in respect of offences under Sections 448,219,219/109, 506 and 427/34,I.P.C. on the ground that the said Harbans Singh in collusion with the other co-accused persons unauthorisedly issued a notice to him to close the ventilator of his residence and despite being told that under the M.P.L.R. Code, 1959, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, got the said ventilator closed.3. On service of summons, the non-applican...
Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi Vs. NaraIn Rice and Oil Mills ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: AIR1987MP15
C.P. Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the order of the District Judge staying the suit under Section 34 of the Act.2. The plaintiff/appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff had appointed the defendant/ respondent a registered firm as one of its distributors at Torwa in Bilaspur district forsale of fertilizers, viz., Calcium Ammonium Nitrate and Ammonium Sulphate, both controlled items, manufactured by the plaintiff. The terms and conditions for the supply of fertilisers, are incorporated in the agreement D7- 30-3-1972, which was accepted by the defendant on 18-4-1972. Under Clause 4(1) of the agreement the price for ammonium sulphate was Rs. 4357- per ton f.o.r. Bhilai, but this price was subject to revision and the price ruling on the date of despatch shall apply. Under Clause 21, all disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the agreement should be decided by arbitration...
Deva Vs. Durgashankar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: AIR1986MP195
Sohani, J. 1. On a reference made by a Division Bench, this Full Bench has been constituted to decide the following question : --'Whether an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent lies to a Division Bench of this Court against the judgment of a single Judge disposing of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution'?1 The facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : Under the rules of this High Court certain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are heard by a Single Judge ofthis Court. Aggrieved by the final decision given by a learned single Judge in such petition, an appeal was preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting this High Court When that appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, a preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the appeal Reliance was placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. 16/85 (reported in 1986 Lab 1C 640). (National Textile Corporation (M...
Ramlal Chourasia and ors. Vs. Ganesh Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ140
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against order dated November 24. 1981 passed by the District Judge, Satna. whereby Civil Appeal No. 3-A of 198 1 was dismissed as abated.2. Respondent Ganesh Prasad filed a suit for eviction of Kashi Prasad (since deceased) and Ramlal from the suit shops and for damages during the pendency of the suit. The suit was decreed by judgment dated October 1 8, 1 976. The defendants filed first appeal in which, by order dated August 16, 1977. four new issues were framed by the appellate Court and remitted to the trial Court under Rule 25 of Order 41, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') with a direction to record evidence, and remit its findings.3. The plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 1292 of 1977 in this Court which was dismissed by order dated 30-1 -1979.4. On March 3, 1980, Kashi Prasad died. Therefore, the plaintiff made an application before the trial Court on 10-4 1980. under Rule 2 of Order 22 of the Code to bring l...
Omkarlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1289
Ram Pal Singh, J.1. By this criminal appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of 8 months' rigorous imprisonment thereunder, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, in Session Trial No. 144 of 1982 dt. 19-7-1983. The appellant in the trial was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C.2. Prosecution case during the trial was that on 17-10-1982 at or about 10.30 a.m. at village Aron, when Deshraj was grazing his cattle near a well in company of one Lakhu, the appelalnt arrived at the spot after having armed himself with pharsa and knife and asked both of them to disrobe. Deshraj and Lakhu were compelled by the appellant to sit on the ground, and then the appellant said that he would kill them. The appellant, it is further alleged, attacked Deshraj with pharsa and knife and, thus, inflicted injury upon his head near the right ear and arm. At this stage, Lakhu fled away from the spot towar...
Ramchandra and ors. Vs. Dattatraya and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1986MP191; 1986MPLJ406
Sohani, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court, who was of the opinion that two decisions of this Court in Civil Revn. No. 6 of 1985 (Pirbux v. Babulal) (reported in 1986 Cur Civ LJ 36) and in Civil Revn. No. 942 of 1984 (Gayaprasad v. Deepchand)(reported in 1985 Cur Civ LJ 91) required reconsideration by a larger Bench.2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows: In a suit instituted by the applicants against the opponents in the Court of the Civil Judge, II Class, Neemuch, an application for the grant of temporary injunction, submitted by the applicants was rejected. Aggrieved by that order, the applicants preferred an appeal in the Court of addl. Judge, Neemuch to the Court of District Judge, Mandsaur, but that appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the applicants preferred a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. before this court on 5-11-1984. Prior to that date Section 115, C.P.C. was...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Inderjeetsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ348
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition Under Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (for short 'the Code'), is directed against the order dt. 14-7-82 passed by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Criminal Appeal No, 64 of 1982 whereby conviction of the non-applicant has been set aside and the case has been remanded to the Court for fresh trial as directed.2. The circumstances giving rise to the application are these.3. The non-applicant Indrajeetsingh during the period between 4-11-68 and 3-4-72 was an employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Was working as Nazir in the Collectorate, Mandsaur. It was his duty to deal with the cash and maintain proper accounts. On 3-4-72 he applied for casual leave and thereafter did not return to duty.4. A committee constituted by the Collector examined the accounts on 5-4-72 and it was found that the non-applicant had embezzled an amount of Rs. 39,051.40 between 4-11-68 and 3-4-72.5. The matter was reported to the Police, Mandsau...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›