Madhya Pradesh Court January 1990 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.
Kamlabai Vs. Manoharlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ287
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. By this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 31-8-87, passed by the Addl, Sessions Judge, Neemuch, in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 1987, thereby upholding the order dated 21-4-87, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Neemuch, in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1986, holding the complaint filed by the petitioner as barred by time and dismissing the same on that count.2. A few facts of the case, necessary for disposal of this petition, may be noted : The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent and daughter-in-law of respondent No. 2. Her marriage was solemnised on 10-2-72, in village Chittakhedi, police station Jiran, district Mandsaur, but as can be gathered from the allegations made in the complaint, there was no conjugal harmony between the two and ultimately the petitioner was required to separate herself because of illtreatment and at times indifferent attitude on the part of her husband. She started se...
Rewati Bai Vs. Jageshwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ40
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J. 1. This is wife's application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. invoking inherent powers of this Court to quash order dated 25-8-1988 passed by Shri A. K. Potdar, Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Raigarh as approved by order dated 11th March, 1989 passed by Shri D. N. Dixit, Sessions Judge Raigarh in Criminal Revision 117 of 1988 dismissing her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C.2. The applicant in her application dated 30th June, 1987 submitted that she was married to the non-applicant about 40 years before in accordance with Mitakshara, Hindu Law and had given birth to four children. She further submitted that she was driven out of her marital home by the non-applicants about three years before without any reason. She also alleged that she was old and without any support and was, therefore, unable to maintain herself. According to her, the non-applicant had in his possession 17 acres of agricultural land which yeilded two crops every year providing with annu...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Western Coal Fields Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC599
S.K. Seth, J.1. The Additional District Judge, Manendragarh vide his judgment dated 30.8.86 decreed the claim for damages made by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Western Coal Fields Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 37, 117.52/- together with interest against the defendant No. 1-appellant-Union of India representing the administration of South Eastern Railway. It is being aggrieved by it that the defendant No. 1-Union of India has filed the present appeal in this Court.2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are these that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Western Coal Fields Ltd. had placed an order for supply of G.I.Pipes on the defendant No. 2-respondent No. 2 M/s. Jain Tube Company Ltd. sometime in 1981. According to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, pursuant to the placing of the said order, the defendant No. 2-respondent No. 2 booked the relevant consignment consisting of 148 pieces of G.I. Pipes, admeasuring 897.26 metres, valued at Rs. 83.260.15P, at J.T.C. railway siding at Ghaziabad in the ...
Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sugha Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC275
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is an appeal filed by M.P. State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by an award under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The claimant respondent No. 1 has been awarded an amount of Rs. 42500/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation.2. It is an admitted fact that passenger bus bearing No. MPW 9762, owned by appellant Corporation, driven by the respondent No. 2 met with an accident on 25.7.84 injuring the claimant/respondent No. 1. It has not been dispute, not could it have been disputed at this stage, that respondent No. 1 aged 14 years on the date of the incident, was seriously injured in the incident His both legs sustained injuries.Injuries to the left leg were more serious in nature. His ankle joint was severely damaged and ultimately the left leg had to be amputated from above the knee joint3. The case of the claimant was that the cause of the accident was negligent driving of the driver while the Cor...
Dip Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC157
R.K. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 1-B/ 1977 dated 14.8.1978 hereby the learned Trial Court while decreeing the suit to the extent of cost price of the goods despatched to the consignee plaintiff but not delivered to him, has disallowed the claim for damages and interest.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly Stated, are as follows:A consignment of 483 bags of cement as despatched from Jhukehi Rail ay Station (Kymure siding) on 29th March, 1976 to Mandsaur in the name of the plaintiff's firm. The said consignment as expected to reach destination within a fortnight but the consignment as never delivered to the consignee. The defendant Railways Administrationent on corresponding it the plaintiff for considering the plaintiff's claim on account of non-delivery of the consignment, but did not allow the claim of the plaintiff and as such, the p...
Shri Venkatesh, Mandir Trust Committee of Ayodhya, Faizabad and ors. V ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: AIR1990MP287
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendants arising out of the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code'), in relation to the public trust known as Vaikunth Mandap Shri Venktesh Mandir Trust of Ayodhya (Faizabad) U.P. The defendants raised objection to the jurisdiction of the trial Court at Murwara (Katni) to entertain the present suit under Section 92 of the Code and the said objection has been overruled by the Court by order dated 21-1-1988 impugned in the present revision. 2. The revision raises important and intricate question of interpretation of theprovisions of Section 92 of the Code, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits in respect of management of public charities or trusts and for grant of reliefs specified in the said section. The counsel appearing for both the sides have cited a few rulings in support of their contentions which I shall refer to in my order in the following paragraphs, bu...
Rajdhar Prasad Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ56
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. The petitioner was employed as Lower Division Clerk in Zila Panchayat, Guna. He has assailed in this matter the order Annexure P-10, passed on 2-6-1988 by the Secretary, Zila Panchayat. By that order, he has been superannuated on his attaining age of 55 years on 3-6-1988.2. The short contention pressed by his counsel is that statutory rules have been given a go-bye in rendering the impugned order. Relevant rules are extracted in the petition. Those are parts of Rule 154 of M. B. Panchayat Niyam, Samvat 2008. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Class III employee and, therefore, reliance is placed on the following provisions which we extract from Annexure R-1 of the return :1 mifu;e 1 ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[krmifu;e LFkkfir fd;k tk;s] vFkkZr %&1 v prqFkZ oxZ deZpkfj;ksa ds vfrfjDrvU; deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fr dh vk;q 55 o'kZ gksxhAprqFkZ oxZ ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fk vk;q 60 o'kZgksxhA [k prqFkZ oxZ ds deZpkfj;ksa ds vfrfjDr vU; deZpkfj;ksa d...
Ramu Ram Sahu and Ors. Vs. National Co-operative Consumers' Federation ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1991MP63; 1991(0)MPLJ530
Y.B. Suryawanshi, J.1. The petitioners, employees of respondent No. 1, the National Co-operative Consumers' Federation of India Limited ('N.C.C.F.' for short), have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, principally challenging the non-compliance of the policy of 'equal pay for equal work', and also discriminatory attitude in the payment of emoluments of fixed pay and daily wages to the ad hoc employees vis a vis regular employees of the same cadre, doing similar work.2. The petitioners are all employees of the respondent N.C.C.F., posted in its Indore Branch. The petitioner No. 1 Ramu Ram Sahu is working since 7-5-84 as L.D.C. on a fixed pay of Rs. 662/r per month both the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are working as ID.Cs. since 10-8-84, on a fixed pay of Rs. 662/- per month; the petitioner No. 4 is employed since 23-1-84, as Junior Accounts Clerk also on fixed pay as above, whereas, petitioner No. 5 is employed since 12-1-84 as a Peon on daily wages at the ra...
Durga Singh Lodhi Vs. Prembai W/O Durga Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ332
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the consequences resulting from non-compliance of the order passed under Section 125(1), Criminal Procedure Code directing payment of maintenance allowance. Where a person under such obligation to pay maintenance allowance fails, without sufficient cause, to comply with the order granting maintenance, a warrant for the recovery of the amount may be issued on an application made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. If, despite such a warrant the maintenance allowance is not paid, the person may even be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment, if sooner made. If, however, such person offers to maintain his wife on the condition of her living with him and the wife refuses to live with him, the Magistrate may consider any ground of refusal stated by her and may make an order as aforesaid, notwithstandin...
Durga Singh Lodhi Vs. Prembai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2065; 1990MPLJ332
B. C. Varma, J. 1. Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the consequences resulting from non-compliance of the order passed under Section 125(1), Cr.P.C, directing payment of maintenance of allowance. Where a person under such obligation to pay maintenance allowance fails, without sufficient cause, to comply with the order granting maintenance, a warrant for the recovery of the amount may be issued on an application made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. If, despite such a warrant the maintenance allowance is not paid, the person may even be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment, if sooner made. If, however, such person offers to maintain his wife on the condition of her living with him and the wife refuses to live with him, the Magistrate may consider any ground of refusal stated by her and way make an order as aforesaid, notwithstanding such offer, if...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›