Skip to content

Madhya Pradesh Court May 1987 Judgments

May 21 1987

Virendra Kumar Saklecha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-21-1987

Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ202

ORDERG.C. Gupta, J. 1. This is an application under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 28-5-1984 passed by Shri L. J. Mandlik, Special Judge, Bhopal in Special Case No. 2 of 1983 framing charges against the applicant under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The applicant was a Minister of Industries of the State of Madhya Pradesh from 27-6-1977 to 17-1-1978, after which he became the Chief Minister with effect from 18-1-1978 and continued as such upto 19-1-1980. It is alleged that he has been found in possession of properties worth Rs. 57,61,101/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which he cannot satisfactorily account. He is, therefore, alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the charge-sheet was filed and the applicant appeared before the le...

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 1987

Balveer Singh Vs. Kishanlal

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-01-1987

Reported in: AIR1988MP227

T.N. Singh, J. 1. This is tenant's appeal whose eviction has been ordered under Clause (c) of Section 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the 'Act' by two Courts below.2. Having taken the view that the interpretation of Section 12(1)(c) aforesaid in several decisions of this Court manifested divergence of views and the matter required consideration of a larger Bench, I framed for that Bench's consideration, the question 'Whether mere disclamer of landlord's title by the tenant/defendant entitled the landlord to a decree for his eviction in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act without proving further that such disclaimer affects the plaintiff's interest adversely and substantially?'3. The matter has since been considered by a Division Bench of this Court which has rendered on 27-3-1987 (AIR 1988 Madh Pra 225) its opinion on the question aforesaid. In para 6 of the opinion, the Bench has concluded that 'in a case where there is a 'disclaimer' as explai...

Tag this Judgment!

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files Start your Free Trial