Madhya Pradesh Court August 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Motilal S/O Bejnath and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ228
Y.B. Suryavanshi, J.1. The five appellants, namely, Motilai, Shankar s/o Motilai, Shiv. Kumar s/o Lalji, Ram Kinker s/o Motilai and Lalman s/o Lalji, have preferred this appeal against the convictions and sentences passed in S.T. No. 7/7/84 by; A.S.J., Satna dated 6-3-1085. The convictions and sentences are as follows:CONVICTION SENTENCEAppellant Ram Kinker undetf section 2 years R.I. and R.I.148 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code for life.All others' under section 147 2 years RT. and R.I.and 302/149, Indian Penal Code for life.All appellants under section 323/149, 6 months R.I.Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to JageshwarAppellant Shanker under section 323/149, 6 months R.I.Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to IshwardinAppellant Ram Kinker under section 325, One years' R.I.Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Kailashwith a direction that the sentences shall concurrent.2. It is not in dispute that on 14-3-1984 at village Gunhar, P. S; Nagod, there was some incident with Raghuvar (decea...
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior Vs. the Regional Transp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC620; AIR1990MP17; 1989MPLJ773
T.N. Singh, J. 1. When this matter came up on 13-7-1989 before two of us, sitting in Division Bench, petitioner's counsel placed reliance on two decisions of Apex Court and also an unreported Bench, decision of this Court, rendered at the Main Seat on 23-9-1981 (Capital Roadways & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal v. S.T.A., Gwalior). Because validity was challenged of a temporary permit expiring in August, 1989, hearing of the petition was expedited. On 27-7-1989, respondents 3 and 4, the permit-holders entered appearance through counsel and cited another unreported Bench decision of this Court rendered also at the Main Seal on 25-11-1988 in the case of Mahesh Kumar Singh v. R.T.A., Rewa. Counsel for the parties conceded that there was conflict between the two decisions and submitted that the matter be heard by a Larger Bench. Hence, it is before us today.2. During the course of hearing, Shri J. P. Gupta, appearing for the permit-holders, raised a preliminary objection. But, we refused to ent...
Motilal Vs. Anandi Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1991MP143
1. This judgment shall also dispose of L.P. A. No. 13/80 preferred by the present respondents.2. The two appeals have arisen out of the judgment dated 5-11-1980 of R.G. Mishra, J., in Misc. Petition No. 14/72 (Motilal v. Anandi Lal, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.3. The learned single Judge remanded a proceeding under Section 189( 1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') to the Revenue Commissioner Gwalior Division, Gwalior to decide afresh in advertence to the findings and directions given by the learned single Judge -- the matter of petitioner Motilal's application for the resumption of 12 bighas 8 biswas out of S. No. 437, with present respondents 1 and 2 (Anandilal and Pannalai) and their brother Rampratap (since deceased and now represented by his widow respondent No. 3 Kadani Bai and their minor son respondent No. 4 Narrotum) and the remaining 12 bighas 8 biswas out of S. No. 437 S. No. 464 (10 bighas 5 biswas), with present respondent No. 5 P...
Nissan Springs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR788]; (1995)IIILLJ234MP
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), against the award dated July 20, 1984 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Jabalpur, in W.C.C. Case No. 51/81 (N.F) awarding the sum of Rs. 9,676.80 as compensation in favour of the respondent. The respondent has also challenged this order by filing his separate appeal which is Misc. Appeal No. 281/1984 (Om Jain v. Nissan Springs Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.) and has claimed interest and penalty on the aforesaid amount. Since both these appeals arise on the same set of facts, they are being decided by this judgment.2. The respondent Om Jain had in his application dated December 8. 1981, submitted that he was employed as an Electrician with the appellants and was on duty on October 9, 1980 at 10.30 a.m., when an electric Motor fell on his right foot causing fracture of his ankle. According to him, he was first sent to Victoria Hospital fo...
Bahadursingh @ Bahadursingh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ753
S.D. Jha, J.1. The appellant (hereinafter called 'accused') challenged his conviction Under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentence of three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default one month simple imprisonment, awarded by First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, by his judgment dated 3-2-1986.2. The accused was prosecuted by P. S. Balwada. The case against the accused was that on 1-2-1985, prosecutrix Musamat Kaweribai (P.W. 1) had gone to the field to graze her cattle. Her husband on that day had gone to village Neemsar. The accused had also come there for grazing his cattle. He conversed with the prosecutrix for some time. At about 5 p.m. addressing the prosecutrix as aunt he requested her to help him, meaning allow him sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix declined the request and stated that she would cry. The prosecution alleges that thereafter accused fell Mst. Kaweribai down and forcibly against her will and without her consent had sexual intercourse with her. Her cries attrac...
Kailashkumar Satyadev Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2556
S.D. Jha, J.1. Appellant Kailashkumar challenges his conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Prices and Price Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter called 'the Order') and sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, two months simple imprisonment awarded by Sessions Judge, Indore acting as Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. The prosecution case is that a team of food-inspectors on 17-10-1984 checked Geetanjali Gas Agency owned by appellant. On verification it was found that cooking gas was supplied to consumers at higher rate than fixed, accounts were not maintained properly and gas-connections were given to unauthorised persons at enhanced rates. The team then submitted their report Ex. P/1 to the Collector (Food) Indore, which in turn appears to have been forwarded to Police Station, Malharganj, ...
Manoj Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP5; 1990(0)MPLJ791
V.D. Gyani, J.1. By this petition thepetitioner challenges the decision dated 5-8-1988, taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh respondent No. 1, declaring 233 failed candidates at the Combined Entrance Test hereinafter referred to as 'the CET) held in the year 1988 for Engineering Group, to be admitted in the State Engineering Colleges in the next year, i.e. 1989 academic session and prays for quashing the same with other directions or orders, as may be deemed necessary.2. Facts leading to the presentation of this petition may be briefly stated as follows: It is an admitted fact that the Government of Madhya Pradesh, by order No. 2354/3759/-88 42 JaNi, One-Bhopal. dated 29-8-1988, filed as Annexure R 1, took a decision that all such candidates who having failed in English Subject in the year 1988. but securing a high percentage of marks in Physics. Chemistry and Mathematics higher than the last candidate in the merit list of pre-Engineering Test (for short, the PET) Examination, 1988, sh...
Praladhsingh Vs. the Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Lt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP209
R.K. Varma, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 7-10-1988 passed by the IVth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/86 affirming the judgment and decree dated 14-8-86 passed by the Civil Judge Class, 1, Khachrod in Civil Suit No. I77-A/85 (Old No. 163-A/ 83 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the quarter occupied by him.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:It is undisputed that the plaintiff is a registered Company at Birlagram, Nagda. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was in the employment of the Company and was allotted one quarter No. D-25 as an employee of the Company on a rent of Rs. 5/-per month which was being deducted from his monthly salary. On 25-6-82 the plaintiff Company terminated the services of the defendant and the defendant was asked to vacate the quarter. The plaintiff Company re...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Usha Devi (Lrs. of H.H. Maharaja Y ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: (1989)80CTR(MP)74; [1990]183ITR75(MP)
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. This order shall govern the disposal of all these petitions.2. This is a petition under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), praying for calling a reference of the case from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', Bombay.3. Brief facts are that Smt Usha Devi is the successor of the late His High ness Maharaja Yeshwant Rao Holkar of Indore. The Central Board of Direct Taxes having recognised certain articles of heirloom jewellery under the Wealth-tax (Exemption of Heirloom Jewellery of Rulers) Rules, 1958, granted exemption for the purpose of Clause (xiv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, vide letter No. 4/1 (12/58-WT) dated January 19, 1959, in the wealth-tax assessment of the late Maharaja. As some heirloom jewellery was sold some time in the month of November/ December, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›