Madhya Pradesh Court April 1988 Judgments
Lagan Singh Vs. Sub-divisional, Officer-cum-The Prescribed Authority U ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1988
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ538
ORDERY.B. Suryavanshi, J.1. The petitioner Lagan Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226/227, Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the orders, dated 5-6-1984, passed by respondent No. 1 (S.D.O-cum-Prescribed Authority under section 117, M. P. Panchayats Act, for short called the Act), declaring that the nomination form of respondent No. 2 Chatursingh was improperly rejected, and he being the sole candidate for Ward No. 4, is the successful and unopposed elected Panch, and consequently, the appointment of the petitioner as Panch for the same Ward which purported to be under the Proviso to section 11 (ii) of the Act, is set aside.2. The material facts are as follows: -The respondent No. 2 Chatursingh was a candidate for Gram Panchayat elections from Ward No. 4: whereas, the petitioner Lagan Singh was a candidate from Ward No. 8 of village Hinjer, Block Tamnar, Tahsil Gharghoda, Raigarh. The nomination form of respondent No. 2 Chatursingh was rejected on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ531
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. Heard Shri Amarsingh, learned Counsel for the appellant as also Shri Khan, learned Government Advocate for the State.2. The petitioner was in fact released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. but on filing the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate cancelled his bail bond An application was thereafter, made to the Sessions Court, which was met with dismissal.3. Short question which arises for consideration is whether bail once granted Under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. can be subsequently cancelled on mere filing of challan without there being a prayer for cancellation of bail by the prosecution and without making out grounds for cancellation of bail The question which arises for consideration is whether by mere filing of challan after the expiry of the statutory period, this fact by itself, is sufficient to cancel bail? A mere reading of proviso to Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. would go to show that every person released on bail under this section shall be dee...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Jindal Vs. Ravishankar University, Raipur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989MP1; 1988MPLJ608
Y.B. Suryavanshi, J.1. The petitioner who has passed B.Com Final Degree Examination in the year 1985 has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying, that an appropriate writ or directions be issued to the University (respondent No. 1) to notify fresh MERIT-LIST according to the petitioner's result in REVALUATION of examination papers. According to the results declared in Notification dated 15-7-85, which related to the 'Merit List of First Ten Students' scoring highest marks shown indescending order (Annexure-B). the petitioner's position was at Sr. No. 3. But as a result of revaluation, the petitioner having scored the highest marks should be at Sr. No. 1 vis-a-vis the two students (respondents 2 and 3). Hence this petition.2. (i) It is common ground that the petitioner Manoj Kumar Jindal, a student of Ravishankar University appeared in B.Com, Final Year Examination in 1985, with Roll No. 97495. The University published and declared on 15-7-85 the...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Sisodia Vs. Jiwaji University, Gwalior (M.P.)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989MP18
T.N. Singh, J.1. Petitioner came before us on 7-4-1988 complaining that as per AnnexureP-6 she had been, denied the opportunity of appearing in B.A. Part II Examination of Jiwaji University, Gwalior, commencing on 9th April, 1988. We immediately took cognizance of her grievance and asked her to serve Registrar (Exams.), Jiwaji University, personally so that we could hear him and give her the necessary relief, she was found entitled to, on the next date itself. We heard Shri Madhu Sudan Dubey, Registrar (Exams.) of the University, who appeared personally on 8-4-1988 and drew our attention to the material disclosed in the return which he filed on the same date on behalf of the University. We then took the view tentatively that the petitioner had no case for any interim relief. But, to clinch the issue and to decide the matter finally, we deferred hearing till today to make further investigation on facts and law, lest the petitioner continues to have a nagging grievance. So attuned have l...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pannalal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1561
ORDERR.K. Verma, J.1. This is a revision filed by the State of M.P. against the order dated 18-2-1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Case No. 35/84 discharging the accused-respondents under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.2. The accused-respondents are being prosecuted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for selling the milk at a price in excess of the rate fixed by the order of the Collector Indore purported to be under Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price Control) Order, 1977. The learned Sessions Judge has by the impugned order dt. 18-2-1985 discharged the accused-respondents. Hence this revision by the State.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision must be dismissed, since the act of the accused-respondents could not amount to an offence as would become apparent from what is discussed hereunder.4. The State Government p...
Tag this Judgment!Girjashankar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ242; 1988MPLJ421
V.D. Gyani, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-8-1984, passed by the Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1984, thereby convicting the appellants of an offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appellants were charged with having committed the murder of Urmila on 16-8-1983 and in the alternative they were also charged with having abetted commission of suicide by Urmila - an offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C.2. Short facts of the case, as noted by the trial Court, are that appellant Dinesh was married to the deceased Urmila on 26-4-1982. Their conjugal life for initial few months was peaceful, but it was not to last long, as soon trouble started and the appellants, it is alleged, started ill-treating and goading Urmila Appellant Dinesh, who was unemployed wanted a certificate of having passed the VIIIth standard so as to enable him to procure a job and a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›