Madhya Pradesh Court October 1989 Judgments
Madan Mohan Sharma and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ165
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the prosecution proceedings against the accused/petitioners under sections 5 and 25 of the M. P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act. 1936. read with Rules 8(a). 3(a) and (b) and 13 of the Rules framed thereunder.2. It appears that the accused/petitioners own Mahalaxmi Cinema at Ambah. On 30-10-1974 the record relating to sale of cinema tickets and collection of entertainmennt tax was checked by officials of the Excise Department. It was found that accounts were not correctly maintained; that duplicate tickets were sold; and that several documents forming part of accounts did not cross tally. The entertainment duty to the tune of Rs. 38,000/ - annd odd, and additional tax to the tune of Rs. 19.000/- and odd was found to have been evaded. On 5-12-1974. the petitioners were served with a notice to explain their conduct. They replied to the notice on 26-12 1974. The investigat...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Sharma and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1046
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of the prosecution proceedings against the accused/petitioners under Sections 5 and 25 of the M.P. Entertainment Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, 1936, read with Rules 8(a), 3(a) & (b) and 13 of the Rules framed thereunder.2. It appears that the accused/petitioners own Mahalaxmi Cinema at Ambah. On 30-10-74 the record relating to sale of cinema tickets and collection of entertainment tax was checked by officials of the Excise Department. It was found that accounts were not correctly maintained; that duplicate tickets were sold; and that several documents forming part of accounts did not cross-tally. The entertainment duty to the tune of Rs. 38,000/- and odd, and additional tax to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and odd was found to have been evaded. On 5-12-74, the petitioners were served with a notice to explain their conduct. They replied to the notice on 26-12-74. The investigation having been completed, the...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Radha Bai W/O Ram Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ379
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is an application under section 378(4), Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to file an appeal from an order acquitting the accused/respondents of the offence under section 187(8) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961.2. On 1-10-1981, the Municipal Council, Shivpuri filed a complaint complaining of construction without permissions by the accused/respondents on 5-10-1980. The trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents holding that an offence under section 187(8) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 being punishable with fine only extending to Rs. 1000/-, it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance on expiry of period of 6 months from the date of commission thereof in view of bar enacted by section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. The learned counsel for the complainant seeking leave to file an appeal has contended that in so far as the offences open to prosecution under the provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act are concerned, section ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Radha Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2361
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is an application under Section 378(4), Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal from an order acquitting the accused/respondents of the offence under Section 187(8) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961.2. On 1-10-1981, the Municipal Council, Shivpuri filed a complaint complaining of construction without permission by the accused/respondents on 5-10-1989. The trial court acquitted the accused/respondents holding that an offence under Section 187(8) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 being punishable with fine only extending to Rs. 1,000/-, it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance on expiry of period of 6 months from the date of commission thereof in view of bar enacted by Section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. The learned counsel for the complainant seeking leave to file an appeal has contended that in so far as the offences open to prosecution under the provisions the M.P. Municipalities Act are concerned, Section 313 thereof provid...
Tag this Judgment!Premlata Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT286(MP)
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife of detenu Dhaniya Kumar Jain alias Dhanraj Jain, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to set aside the order of detention passed on 17-5-1989 and served on the detenu on 29-6-1989 with a direction that the detenu be set at liberty. The order is made by Shri A.K. Batabyal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, who is made respondent No. 1 in the petition. The order has been passed under Section 3(i) and (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu is lodged in the Central Jail, Indore and the Superintendent of the Central Jail has also been made as respondent No. 4.2. According to the petitioner, on 3rd April, 1989 the detenu was arrested by the Officers of the Excise Department from his residence for alleged complicity in the offences under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ856; (1990)IILLJ427MP
K.L. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2150 of 1986 pending against the petitioner in the Court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Indore.2. Circumstances giving rise to this petition are these: The petitioner was employed as Inspector in the office of the Co-operative Societies, Indore and under a working arrangment, he was also the Recovery Officer in the District Land Development Bank, Indore.3. According to the prosecution, the petitioner committed criminal breach of trust in respect ofvarious sums as Recovery Officer and alsocommitted cheating and, therefore, standsprosecuted.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the criminal case was instituted against the petitioner several years back and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, his fundamental right of speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated and the case ...
Tag this Judgment!indramal Mukhriya Vs. G.M., Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ605
Y.B. Suryavanshi, J.1. The claimant appellant Indramal has preferred this appeal against the orders dated 29.8.1979 passed by Mr. R.C. Shrivastava, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in M.A.C.C. No. 35 of 1977, dismissing the claimant's/appellant's claim for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for special and general damages, totalling Rs. 2,11,750/- in respect of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 3,1.1977. The learned Tribunal in the impugned order held that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the bus driver/respondent No. 2. The petition accordingly has been dismissed with costs.2. It is common ground that on 3.1.1977 at about 9 a.m. a city bus belonging to respondent No. 1, M.P.S.R.T. Corpn., was driven by Kallu Khan, respondent No. 2 and the Lambretta scooter was driven by the cousin of the claimant, Rameshchand. At the time of the accident, the claimant was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. ...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Ram S/O K.D. Ram and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ145
ORDERS. Awasthy, J.1. This revision has been filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against taking cognizance of the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 is a Superintendent working in the Bhilai Steel Plant, while the applicant No. 2 is a Chowkidar in the Bhilai Club, which is managed by the Officers of the Bhilai Steel Plant. Membership is open to the Officers of the Bhilai Steel Plant, HSCL, MECOH and other Officers of SAIL posted at Bhilai, on payment of prescribed admission and monthly fees according to the bye-laws. The Governing Body of the said Club is an Elected Body. The applicant No. 1 was an Honorary Secretary of the said Club. The Club has a swimming pool. Entry into the pool is restricted to the members and their dependents. No guest is allowed. A Chowkidar is posted on the gate of the swimming pool, who permits the entry on pr...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Ram and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ473
ORDERS. Awasthy, J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 is a Superintendent working in the Bhilai Steel Plant, while the applicant No. 2 is a Chowkidar in The Bhilai Club, which is managad by the Officers of the Bhilai Steel Plant. Membership is open to the Officers of the Bhilai Steel Plant, HSCL, MECON and other Officers of SAIL posted at Bhilai, on payment of prescribed admission and monthly fees according to the bye-laws. The Governing Body of the said Club is an Elected Body. The applicant No. 1 was an Honorary Secretary of the said Club. The Club has a swimming pool. Entry into the pool is restricted to the members and their dependents. No guest is allowed. A Chowkidar is posted on the gate of the swimming pool, who permits the entry on presentation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Vs. Govindram Birdichand Joshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP236
1. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1984 passed by the Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore in C.A. No. 6-A/84 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the VIth Civil Judge Class II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 371-A/77 dated 16-8-79 whereby the plaintiff's suit for eviction has been decreed on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :--It is not disputed that the appellant-defendant has been a tenant in the suit-shop belonging to the respondent-plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The plaintiff served a notice dated 9-7-77 (Ex. P/ 3) on the defendant terminating his tenancy of the suit shop with effect from 31-8-77 on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act as also on the ground of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »