Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Banshilal Madholal Sarpanch Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ798
ORDERK.K. Verma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the following point that has cropped up in Misc. Criminal Case No. 260/1990 (Guddu alias Wahid Khan v. The State) and Misc. Criminal Case No. 355/1990 (Bishambhar alias Satte v. The State): whether the applications under Section 438(1), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') are tenable on coming into force of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (No. 33/89) which was admittedly enforced with effect from 30-1-1990.2. Section 18 of the Act runs as follows:'Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.'3. In Banshilal's case arising out of Crime No. 5/89, P. S. Manpur, the offences alleged were punishable under Sections 366A, Indian Penal Code and 376, Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix, Mst. Geeta, is ...
Rustom Singh and anr. Vs. the Election Officer, Vipnan Sahkari Samiti ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1991MP262
T.N. Singh, J. 1. The fact that a midnight drama was played on the intervening night of 20-1-1989 and 21-1-1989 is projected in the order of the Election Officer. The Order (Annexure N/5) was passed in deciding the question as to whether polling could be suspended at 1.46 p.m. when a large number of votes had already been cast and there remained two more hours for the polling process to be completed.2. Admittedly, rival contentions were raised during polling and he was required to decide whether he had to give effect to the order which was produced before him at 1.05 p.m. In that order, which the Assistant Registrar had passed in his capacity as a Deputy Registrar, it was mentioned that at about 11.00 p.m., at midnight, some antisocial elements had approached him and on undue influence being exercised by them, he had issued an order under duress for election to be continued. Earlier, he had issued an order suspending the election and that order should be deemed effective.3. What is not...
Babulal and ors. Vs. Ramesh Babu Gupta and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1990MP317; 1990MPLJ482
S.K. Jha, C.J.1. This Order will also govern the disposal of Misc. petitions Nos. 442/89 (Moolchand and Anr v. Ramesh Babu Gupta and Ors.) and 443/89 (Mansharam Lahariya and 3 Ors. v. Ramesh Babu Gupta and two Ors).2. In all these three petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the sole question for determination is as to whether the amendment brought about in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (old Code), as amended by the Civil Procedure Code (amendment) Act (Act No. 104 of 1976) by which determination of any question Under Section 47 does not now amount to a decree, can be construed to take away a right of appeal in pending execution cases. Two of the decisions of this Court in case of Chuluram v. Bhagatram, AIR 1980 Madh Pra 16 and Sitaram v. Chaturo, 1981 Jab LJ 171 have taken the view that such a right of appeal, being a vested right, could not be taken away and in orders passed Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were levied in exe...
Omprakash Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ145
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Two petitions were heard analogously for two reasons : one, our competence to hear both petitions at Gwalior Bench was challenged; two, both petitioners have challenged (on different grounds though) the same action of Public Service Comission refusing to call them for interview for the post of Civil Judge. This order shall accordingly govern disposal of both matters, namely, Misc. Petition No. 1185 of 1989 and Misc. Petition No. 1464 of 1989 (Omprakash Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.).2. We set out below the order dated 22-4-1981, passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as that is the source of challenge to our competence to hear the petitions :'In accordance with orders of my predecessor dated 5-2-1976. issued under the proviso to Notification No. 16/20/68-Judl. III. dated November 28, 1968, issued by the President under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 36 of 1956) and in supersession of my orders dated 6-1-1981, I hereby order ...