Madhya Pradesh Court December 1989 Judgments
Central India Excise Traders Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ498MP; 1990MPLJ611
ORDERM. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The petitioner is a registered firm and holds licences for the wholesale supply of country spirit in sealed bottles and loose in areas under the contract supply system, under the terms of the licences granted in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1950(in short The State Act').2. The petitioner calls in question the order dated April 22, 1981 (Annexure P-13), passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, M.P. Indore, while deciding the dispute under Section 7A of Employees Provident Fund and M.P. Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act'), whereby he held that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner as an employer making it obligatory to comply with the provisions of the Provident Funds Scheme framed under the Act in respect of its employees.3. Dealing in country liquor is monopolised by the State of Madhya Pradesh by provisions of the State Act. The relevant facts, not in dispute, are that the petitioner under terms of the excis...
Tag this Judgment!Mahila Mathuro Bai and ors. Vs. Ramwati and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP276; I(1991)DMC229; 1990MPLJ475
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs of declaration and of permanent injunction passed by the trial Court in relation to the suit land situated at Survey No. 531 in village Babrod, Tahsil Mungaoli of Guna District, area 1 Bigha 13 Biswa, was reversed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved of this dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are these One Fodal Singh and Murli Singh, who were real brothers partitioned their properties and agricultural lands; land bearing SurveyNos. 220, 224, 243, 510 and 531, situated in village Babrod came in the share of Fodal Singh and the rest of the lands went to the Murli Singh. Mathurobai, plaintiff No. I, was married to one Takhat Singh, but without seeking any decree of divorce, she, according to the custom prevailing in the caste, married Fodal Singh and started living with him as his wife. Mathurobai gave birth to one daughter and two sons. It is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Daya Yadav Vs. Kishan Lal Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: II(1991)DMC421
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the wife against the judgment and decree of divorce passed against her by the trial Court.2. The suit for divoce was based on cruelty. Out of various instances of cruelty, the learned trial Court accepted the plea of cruelty as pleaded in para 4 of the plaint. On translation, the plea runs as under :'The respondent very often told the petitioner 'after separating from your parents you should raised with me at Satna or get yourself transferred to Satna else I shall commit suicide and get you all arrested after making a report and you all shall be arrested on my report. 3. The appellant wife denied the allegations. Learned trial Court held these allegations to be proved and passed a decree for divorce as aforesaid Hence this appeal.4. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties, I am of the opinion that the appeal must be allowed. The plea reproduced above lacks in material particulars and is, the...
Tag this Judgment!Manaram Bhajra Kachhi Vs. Omprakash Ramkishan Sharma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ452
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order, dated 6-10-1987 (Annexure P-5), passed by First Civil Judge, Class II, Shivpuri, in Civil Suit No. 124-A/1986, and order dated 22-2-1988 (Annexure P-6) passed in Civil Revision No. 33/1987, by District Judge, Shivpuri.2. Brief facts leading to this petition are: The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and for arrears of rent against the petitioner/tenant averring therein that defendant was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- by one Dinanath Sharma. The tenancy was oral, which commenced from 16-9-1981. Dinanath Sharma died on 10-11-1983, who executed a will in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. It was alleged in the plaint that petitioner/defendant paid rent to plaintiff/respondent till 31-1-1986; from 1-2-1986 the petitioner did not pay any rent, hence, a notice of demand, demanding the rent due wa...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Grih Nirman Mandal and anr. Vs. Umashankar Kunjilal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ780
S.K. Dubey, J.1. Aggrieved of a common award and decree dated 19-12-1986, passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Morena, in Reference Cases Nos. 5/1984, 7/1984, 8/1984, 9/1984, 10/1984, 12/1984, 13/1984, 14/1984, 15/1984, 17/1984, 18/1984, 19/1984, 20/1984, 22/1984, 23/1984, 24/1984, 25/1984, 26/1984, 27/1984, 28/1984, 29/1984, 30/1984, 31/1984, the M. P. Grih Nirman Mandal, Bhopal (for short 'appellant No. 1'), has preferred separate appeals, being Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 46/1984, 45/1984, 39/1984, 104/1987, 51/1987, 53/1987, 54/1987, 55/1987, 52/1987, 56/1987, 80/1987, 32/1987, 34/1987, 35/1987, 36/1987, 38/1987, 40/1987, 41/1987, 42/1987, 43/1987, 44/1987, 47/1987, 48/1987, 49/1987 50/1987 and 96/1987, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended (for short, the 'Act'). The respondents/land owners whose lands were acquired for appellant No. 1, have also filed their cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, for enha...
Tag this Judgment!ChaIn Singh Dhakad Vs. Hargovind and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ33
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is complainant's application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the non-applicants by Shri K. A. Sisodiya, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen on 7-8-89 and 8-8-1989 in bail application Nos. 546/89 and 636/89 respectively.2. It appears that Vinita, Daughter of the applicant was married to non-applicant Hargovind on 7-5-1987. She died on 7-7-1989 apparently because of poisoning. Facts in the case diary reveal that she had become pregnant and aborted a child at Jabalpur in June 1989. Facts in case diary also reveal that on 8-7-1989 at 1.45 A. M. intimation was received through Mahesh, ward boy of Government Hospital Udaypura, district Raisen that Vinita was brought to the hospital by non-applicant Hargovind and his father Kanhaiyalal for treatment but on examination she was found already dead. The intimation was given by Dr. S. N. Singh on 7-7-1989 at 10.10 p.m. On receipt of this intimation 'Marg' was record...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhrani W/O Jugarua Dhobi and ors. Vs. Chhotelal S/O Gulkhoi Dhobi an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ506
K.M. Agrawal, J.1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below was admitted for hearing on 13-12-1983 on the following two substantial questions of law :-(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should have been held that Jugarua had in fact mortgaged the suit land in favour of the defendant No. 1 and not sold?(ii) Whether Jugarua could alienate the property belonging to the joint Hindu family of himself and the plaintiffs, without any legal necessity for the family and whether the burden to prove the legal necessity was on the defendants?2. The suit was for declaration of title and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was the joint Hindu family property, which stood recorded in the name of Jugarua Dhobi. On 17-12-1965 Jugarua took a loan of Rs. 100/- from the defendant No. 1 Chhotelal and executed a sale...
Tag this Judgment!Shivlal Ghassuram Vs. Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ462
ORDERT. N. Singh, J.1. The petitioner claims that he has been duly declared a Sarpanch as per Annexure P-2 but the Returning Officer acted illegally and arbitrarily in declaring Tularam, respondent No. 4, as the Sarpanch elected for Gram Panchayat, Bhaingna, in Tahsil Bhitarwar of Gwalior District.2. Returns have come from the respondents and they are two in number. A separate return is filed by respondent No. 4 Tularam and on behalf of the Returning Officer and S. D. O a common return is filed. With that return has come Annexure R-3, and that is crucial to the decision in the instant case. We are required, indeed, to compare Annexure P-2 and Annexure R-3, as both, admittedly, are filled up and signed by the Returning Officer. The relevant election law which is not disputed is that under the provisions of M. P. Panchayats Act, 1981 (for short, the 'Panchayat Act') the Returning Officer has to submit a report to the Chief Election Officer after declaring result of the election and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Lacchiram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2229
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. As none appears for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Gokhale, Advocate, who is present, is requested to act as an amicus curaie. He acceded to the request and heard. Also heard Shri Desai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.2. The petitioner stands convicted under Section 325, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court further directed that in the event the fine being deposited, Rs. 300/- be paid as compensation to the injured Deva.3. Shri Gokhale, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the appellate Court was wrong in holding that it was not incumbent on the prosecution to have explained the injuries sustained by the, co-accused Mangtya and that the injuries were caused at a different place in an altogether different incident. The next submission made by him is that even if the petitioner is held to be guilty, yet ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivchand Amolakchand Bus Operator, Shivpuri Vs. State Transport Appel ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP300; 1990MPLJ720
T.N. Singh, J.1. In this writ petition, the order passed on 13-1-1989 byState Transport Appellate Tribunal, for short, the Tribunal' is impugned mainly on the ground that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in rejecting petitioner's appeal and in upholding the order passed on 29-10-1986 by Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior, for short, the 'RTA', by which petitioner's prayer for renewal of stage carriage permit No. 11/Stage/72 on the route Shivpuri to Vijaypur Via Tentra, Pohari and Gaswani was rejected.2. In order to appreciate the contention of petitioner's counsel Shri Shejwalkar, it is necessary to narrate briefly the history of petitioner's permit aforesaid. On 26-7-1970 he had made application as contemplated under Section46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the 'old Act', which was notified in the Gazette (M.P. Rajasthan) on 30-4-1971. With the petition copies thereof are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively. By an order passed on 12-7-1971, R.T.A. had reje...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »