Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Sakattar Singh Vs. Raj @ Raj Rani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC199; 1997(1)MPLJ81
B.C. Verma, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge, whereby the decree of the trial Court, dismissing the applicant's suit for a decree declaring the marriage null and void and, in the alternative, for judicial separation, has been affirmed on 29-8-1989, an application has been filed under Section 151 C.P.C. read with Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. This application is signed by both the parties (husband and wife), stating that they have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage as it is not possible for them to live together. The application is supported by an affidavit. Learned counsel admitted before us that the application has been signed by both the parties voluntarily. However, learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act does not lie in an appeal arising out of any petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. The contention is that the proceedi...
Smt. Mitali Chaudhry Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1991MP108; 1991(0)MPLJ5
Faizan Uddin, J.1. The order passed in this petition will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petn. No. 3560 of 1989 Dr. (Smt.) Anshu Gupta v. State of M.P. as both the petitions raise a common question of law and facts for determination by this Full Bench.2. Differing with the view expressed by the earlier two Division Benches of this Court, in Dr. (Mrs.) Anju Gupta v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 666 of 1981, decided on 4-8-1981 and Smt. Tanuja Singh v. State of M.P., M.P, No. 1169 of 1988, decided on30-8-1988; another Division Bench of this Court has made this reference to examine and decide the constitutional validity of Rules 3 and 4 of 1984 Revised Rules framed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, for selection of the candidates for appointment as House Job Officers in the Medical Colleges of the State. That is how this petition has been placed before this Full Bench.3. Before we refer to the impugned Rules, it would be appropriate to briefly state the facts, in the context of which, t...
Pr. (Mrs.) Kirti Deshmankar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1990MP357; 1990(0)MPLJ494
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This petition initially was heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Dr. T. N. Singh, J. and myself; there it was contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 5 is not entitled to admission in post-graduation course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in G. R. Medical College, Gwalior, as respondent No. 5 prosecuted her studies and did her MBBS as a foreign national, a nominee, in reserved seat under Self-financing Foreign Students Scheme (for short, the 'Scheme'); therefore, the entitlement of respondent No. 5 had to be determined with respect to Post-graduation Rules in that context, as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No. 908/1986 (Dr. S. K. Saxena v. Union of India and others), decided on 26-11-1986. Hence, respondent No. 5's admission to post-graduation course on merit basis is illegal and is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, respondent No. 5 challenged the correctness of the view expressed in the said decision and submitted t...
Smt. Indira Gagele Vs. Shailendra Kumar Gagele
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1992MP72; II(1991)DMC401; 1991(0)MPLJ832
ORDERB.M. Lal, J.1. This revision raises a short question about the date of payment, of maintenance pendente lite granted by the Matrimonial Court to the respondent indigent spouse, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), i.e. from the date of the institution of the suit proceedings, date of application made under Section 24 of the Act or from the date of order passed by the court directing payment of maintenance pendente lite to the respondent.2. The short facts leading to this revision are as under:--The non-applicant in this revision petition Shailendra Kumar Gangele brought art action against the petitioner Smt. Indira Gangele, his wife, under Section 13 of the Act for seeking a decree of annulling the marriage.3. Smt. Indira Gangele, it appears that after receiving the writ of summons of the suit on 26-11-1986, filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite an...
Akbar Ali Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1990MP353
ORDER1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M. P. No. 1407 of 1989 (Jakir Hussain v. State and two others), which raises the identical point which has been raised in this petition. 2. The lands in the two petitions belonging to the petitioners are admittedly open lands. In view of the return filed by the State, it has not been controverted that under the provisions of Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, these lands cannot be treated as vacant lands. The definition of the vacant land under the Act reads as under:-- '2(q) 'vacant land' means land, not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration, but does not include- (i) land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated;.....' As such, it is manifest on the aforesaid definition that a land which is not being used mainly for the purpose of agriculture in an urban agglomer...
Hari Shankar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1799
ORDERK.K. Varma, J.1. Applicants by Shri V.S. Thakur, Advocate.2. State by Shri Arvind Dudawat, Addl. Goverment Advocate.3. They are heard.4. The applicants -- concededly Brahimins by caste -- apprehend their arrest in Crime No. 61/90 P. S. Harijan Kalyan, Gwalior. The police was activated by a written report was addressed to the Town Inspector. P. S. Dabra. The report was lodged by Man Singh s/ o. Gandhiram Jatav, of village Chomo. Concededly a Jatav is a member of Scheduled Caste.5. It is alleged that on 16-2-90, the applicants went to the mohalla of the complainant. They ordered the first-informant and others as follows:^^rqe yksx ge dsg ogk ij dey ij ujkskefek dks oksV Mkyks ugha rks rqEgsa ekj MkysaxsA geus euk fd;k fd ge rks gekjhethZ gksxh mls oksV nsaxsA brus esa ;g yksx xkyh xyksp djus yxs vkSj ekj ihVdjus yxsA**6. In addition, it has been stated that co-accused Gopal fired a gun hitting the right arm of first-informant Man Singh.7. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the S...
Parashu Ram S/O Darbarilal Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1990
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ708
ORDERP.C. Pathak, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 25-7-1989 (Annexure A-13).2. The petitioner was a permanent Upper Division Clerk in Special Area Development Authority, Khajuraho (hereinafter called 'SADA'), district Chhatarpur. The Town Improvement Trust, Chhatarpur (hereinafter called 'the Trust1) intended to create and fill up one post of Head Clerk under it. On 3-6-1986, the petitioner applied for the said post vide application (Annexure A-1) through proper channel. The Special Area Development Authority forwarded the said application along with its own recommendation dated 12-6-1986 (Annexure A-2) and its copy to the State Government.3. On receipt of the said application, the Trust addressed a letter dated 17-2-1987 (Annexure A-3) to the State Government to sanction creation of one post of Head Clerk. The Trust needed an experienced person and the petitioner fulfilled all that was required for re...
Mishribai Vs. Parasmal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC183
R.K. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the wife Mishribai against the judgment and decree dated 15.10 88 passed in Civil Suit No. 23-A/86 by the Iind Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ratlam whereby allowing the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent-husband has been dismissed and the husband's cross-claim for divorce under Section 13 of the Act has been decreed.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :'The appellant, who is a teacher at Jaora, was married there on 26.4.1982 to the respondent who is a teacher, resident of Manasa, District Mandsaur. After the marriage, the couple lived together at Kukadeshwar in Tehsil Manasa and they also lived together at several places including Jaora, Khargone, Jharda, Indore'.3. It is the case of the appellant that on 29.2.84 the respondent left her at Jaora and has since then des...
Ganga Bai Vs. Brij Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-1990
Reported in: II(1992)DMC514
V.D. Gyani, J.1. By this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C the Petitionerchallenges the order dated 20-2-89, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge,Khargone, in Criminal Revision No. 18/87, thereby dis-entitling the petitioner,from claiming maintenance allowance from her husband the respondent, onthe ground that she was not his lawfully wedded wife.2. Short facts in the case are that the petitioner filed an applicationUnder Section 125 Cr. P.C., claiming maintenance. Her first application was in theyear 1984, which she did not persue as the respondent perasuaded her toreturn to her matrimonial home on as assurance that he would be no longerill-treated in future. However, taking advantage of non-prosecution of case,the respondent No. 1 started ill-treating the petitioner, who was compelledto leave her matrimonial home and file a fresh application for maintenanceUnder Section 125 Cr. P.C. which was filed some time in July 1985. The respondentNo. 1 is her husband, while respondent No. 2 ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Milapchand Mohanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC309
R.K. Varma, J.1. This is a first appeal filed by the Union of India representing the concerned Railway against the Judgment and decree dated 27.7.77 passed in Civil Suit No. 40-B of 1972 (new No. 31.-B of 1972) by IVth Additional District Judge, Indore, whereby the claim of the respondent plaintiff for the price of loss of consignment of goods amounting to Rs. 9,528.63 ps. has been decreed.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:3. On 28.10.1971, the consignee defendant No. 6 M/s Rao Brothers, General Cloth Merchant, Katihar Manihari (pumiya) Bihar, placed an order with the plaintiff firm at Indore for purchase of terrycot suiting and shirting worth Rs. 9.528.63 ps. The consignee asked the plaintiff to send the consignment by goods train and to send the railway receipt (public way Bill) in the name of the plaintiff through Bank so that he might take delivery of goods at destination after making the payment of the Bank Accordingly, on 28.10.1971, the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »