Madhya Pradesh Court May 1988 Judgments
Jagdish Chandra Makhija Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ239
P.C. Pathak, J.1. The appellant, a Senior Geohydrologist (Executive Engineer) in Ground Water Survey Department of State of M.P., posted at Khandwa, was convicted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinater called 'the Act') and under section 161, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to R.I. for two yean; and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R.I. for six months, under each, for accepting illegal gratifiction of Rs. 200/- from Ashok Kumar Sharma (PW. 1), a Surveyor, in subdivision of the same department at Dhar.2. On 1-3-1981, Ashok Kumar submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) to Superintendent of Police, Divisional Office of the Vigilance Board, Indore, to the effect that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 200/- for early payment of his bills. He directed Inspector Govind Rao Bhanwar (PW. 9) to take immediate action on the report according to law. The Inspector, along with the complainant, Dy. S.P. Nanawati (PW. 6) and other police perso...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1553
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. Shri Jaisingh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. K. Pavnekar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Pavnekar states that he has neither the case-diary nor any other paper, Shri Mukati, who appears for the intervenor-complainant, has filed certain affidavits alleging that the co-accused Raju had intimidated him. However, no report as such has been lodged.2. By order dated 6-5-88, record of the Committal Court was sent for, which has been received. The case has been committed to Sessions, vide order dated 22-3-88. One of the co-accused, Rajendra has been admitted to bail. Shri Jaisingh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed certified copies of the order-sheet dated 25-2-1988 and Committal Court record is also available. It is shocking that the accused was not produced before the Magistrate for months together and on date after date and what is more painful is that the Magistrate very conveniently had been granting and extending the period of judicial cus...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Ashadevi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1988
Reported in: 1988MPLJ346
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This appeal under Section 110D of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 shall also govern the disposal of other ten Misc. Appeals No. 256/84 (State of M.P. v. Smt. Premlatabai Wd/o Shivpratapsingh), 258/84 (State of M.P. v. Jeetendra Kumar Singh, Minor through guardian Rameshwar Singh) 259/84 (State of M.P. v. Shahjadi Wd/o Shahid Khan, 260/84 (State of M.P. v. Deceased Mulayamsingh through legal representative Smt. Satyawati Wd/o Mulayamsingh), 261/84 (State of M.P. & Anr. v. Jeet Singh), 262/84 (State of M.P. v. Ramlathetsingh), 263/84 (State of M.P. & Anr. v. Jaiveersingh), 264/84 (State of M.P. & Anr. v. Babulal) and 265/84 (State of M.P. v. Lachha & Anr.).2-3. In appeals No. 255/84, 257/84, 258/84, 259/84 and 260/84, the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased constables, who died in the Motor Accident of Police vehicle No. MPP 2294, which was coming back from Alirajpur to Jhabua on 18-2-83, Remaining claimants are the injured persons, who received grievous and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Girja Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1379; 1989MPLJ447
T.N. Singh, J.1. Detention of the petitioner is made in this case in exercise of powers under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act (for short, 'the Act'), by District Magistrate, Bhind. Unfortunately, in the detention order (Annexure R-1) dt. 7-9-1987 the detaining authority has referred to the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act. True, for achieving the statutory objective of maintaining 'public order' the District Magistrate has been duly authorised by the State Government and, in the instant case, he has passed the impugned order to achieve that objective. Whatever that may be, we are not in the least swayed by technical considerations, as there are substantial reasons to take the view that the continuing detention of the petitioner under the Act is illegal and unconstitutional.2. A three-fold contention is forcefully urged by counsel appearing for the petitioner, and we are satisfied that the contentions pressed must prevail. It is first contended that although the detention...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. and anr. Vs. Ashadevi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC337
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 shall also govern the disposal of other ten Misc. Appeals No 256/84 (State of M.P. and Anr. v. Bhaiyalal and Anr.), 257/84 (State of M.P. and Anr. v. Smt. Premlatabai wd/o Shiv Pratapsingh and Anr.) 258/84 (State of M.P. and Anr. v. Jeetendra Kumar Singh, minor through guardian Rameshwar Singh and Anr.) 259/84 (State of M.P. and Anr. v. Shahjadi wd/o Shahid Khan and Ors.) 260/84 (State of M.P. and Anr. v. Deceased Mulayamsingh through legal representative Smt. Satyawati wdjo Mulayamsingh and Ors.) 261/84 (State of M.P. and Anr. v. Jeetsingh and Anr.) 262/84 (State of M.P. and Anr. v. Ramlathet Singh and Anr.) 263/84 (State of M P. and Anr. v. Jaiveersingh and Anr.) 264/84 (State of M P. and Anr. v. Babulal and Anr.) and 265/84 (State of M P. and Anr. v. Lachha and Anr.)2. In appeals No. 255/84, 257/84, 258/84, 259/84 and 260/84, the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased constables, who died in...
Tag this Judgment!Satna Stone and Lime Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1988MP286; 1988MPLJ489
K.N. Agarwal, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of the following writ petitions : -- (1) M.P. No. 955/88, Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State and Anr.; (2) M.P. (No. 229/88, Birla Jute and Ind. Ltd. v. Union of India, and Ors.; (3) M.P. No. 504/88, Bharat Food India Ltd. v. Union of India; (4) M.P. No. 1166/88, Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. and Anr. v. State and Anr.; (5) M.P. No. 500/88, Raymond Cement Works v. Union of India and Ors.; (6) M.P. No. 943/88, Grasim Industries Ltd. v. State and Ors.; (7) M.P. No. 1260/88, Steel Authority of India v. State and Anr.; (8) M.P. No. 1267/88, Cement Corpn. of India v. State and Anr.; (9) M.P. No. 889/88, Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. State and Anr.; (10) M.P. No. 1109/88, D.P. Rai v. State and Anr.; (11) M.P. No. 1112/88, J.A. Trivedi Brothers v. State and Anr.; (12) M.P. No. 1167/88, Pacific Mineral Pvt. Ltd. v. State and Anr.; (13) M.P. No. 1173/88, Eastern Mineral Mine Owners v. State and Ors.; (14) M.P. No. 277/88, Century Textiles and Ind. Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Harsh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., Gwalior Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989MP111
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. My only regret in disposing of the review petition is that it has had a staggered disposal which it did not deserve. Today, therefore, immediately after counsel are heard and authorities cited are reviewed, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the petition instantly to make amends for the delayed disposal of the application.2. This application for review is by the plaintiff/respondent and arises out of an order passed by me on 10-8-1987 in Misc. Appeal No. 141 of 1985 (reported in AIR 1989 NOC 13) wherein I was required to interpret the provisions, inter alia, of Sections 34 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, for short 'the Act'. I took the view in that appeal that the judgment of the trial Court impugned before me was not sustainable in law because of infractions of those provisions. What is not disputed even today is that the plaintiff/respondent had instituted the suit on 19-6-1985 in which he had obtained a temporary injunction under Section 151, C.P.C. on 22-6...
Tag this Judgment!Brajraj Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ978
T.N. Singh, J.1. Under an order passed on 9-9-1983 under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, for short, the 'Act', by the District Magistrate, Gwalior, the petitioner came to be detained with the object of preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to public order. It appears from Annexure R/3 that he was taken into custody on 11-9-1987 and has since suffered detention under the Act after he was heard by the Advisory Board and his detention was confirmed for a period of twelve months as per orders Annexures R/8 and R/9.2. Though counsel has pressed several contentions to contest the validity of the detention order as also the continued detention of the petitioner in violation of constitutional and statutory injunction, we propose to deal only with such of his contentions as we have found substantial and unanswerable. Our attention is drawn by Shri Madhukar Rao, appearing for the petitioner as State Defence, appointed by us, to the 'Grounds' Annexure R/4(A) in ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sudamabai Vs. Pratapsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989MP117
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the decree dt. 20-1-1986 passed by the IVth Additional Judge to the District Judge, Indore exercising powers under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act') in small cause case No.1306/79. 2. Circumstances giving rise to the petition are these. The non-applicant sued the applicant for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the accommodation in question alleging that the latter was his tenant. The non-applicant claimed title to the property under a sale-deed. The applicant contested the title of the non-applicant and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. 3. After trial, the learned trial Court decreed the claim for arrears and hence this revision. 4. The contention of the applicant's learned counsel is that as the applicant had denied the non-applicant's title controversy as to title was clearly involved and the Small Cause Court had therefore, no jurisdiction to decide the suit....
Tag this Judgment!M.P. State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Bhagiram Yadav and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ821MP; 1990(0)MPLJ328
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. The petitioner Corporation has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court (Annexures C and E respectively), whereby respondent No. 1 was declared to be classified as permanent Junior Booking Clerk.2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent No. 1 was initially employed by the petitioner Corporation as a Security Guard and was posted at Neemuch Depot. In compliance of the order dated 10.6.1980 of the Divisional Manager, M.P. State road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1 was deputed to work as such from 13.6.1980 and posted to the Rampura Bus Stand for point to point booking. Respondent No. 1 was called back to his parent Department vide order dated 28.5.1982. Being aggreived by that order, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 61(1)(a)(c) read with Section 31 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (here...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »