Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP259; 1991(0)MPLJ581
K.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The defendant/State has come up in second appeal aggrieved by the decree granted by the trial Court issuing permanent preventive injunction restraining the defendant/State from recovering an amount of Rs. 1080/- with interest as arrears of land revenue from the plaintiff/ respondent and confirmed by the lower appellate Court.2. The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - by way of damages for breach of contract from the defendant/State and also for an injunction restraining the recovery of Rs. 2131/- as an arrear of land revenue sought to be made by the defendant/State from the plaintiff.3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover Rs. 5,000/ - by way of damages and hence the suit seeking a declaration in that regard was directed to be dismissed. That part of the decree has not been challenged in appeal by the plaintiff and hence has achieved a finality. As to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ468
ORDERK.M. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice dated 4-3-1983 (Annexure-C) for re-assessment Under Section 19(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (in short, the 'Act') and the order dated 25-1-1983 (Annexure-D) issued and passed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur (in short, the 'Addl. S.T.O.'), against the petitioner.2. The petitioner was assessed to tax for the period between 11-11-1977 to 31-10-1978 on a gross turnover of Rs. 3,15,000/- by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur (in short, the 'Asstt. S.T.O.') by his assessment order dated 25-10-1979. Subsequently on the basis of a report of the Flying Squad, the Asstt. S.T.O. initiated re-assessment proceedings Under Section 19(1) of the Act and directed issuance of notice for the purpose on 4-7-1980. Notice (Annexure-B) was served on the petitioner and it made appearance before the Asstt. S.T.O. on 28-7-1980 through its proprietor Shri Prem Chand Jain. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1991)DMC588
Gulab Chand Gupta, J.1. The applicants are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Class I Sihora in Cr. Case No. 59/89. They applied for their discharge under Section 239 Cr. P.C. which request has been rejected and charge as aforesaid framed. The applicants challenged the same by filing a Criminal Revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge Sihora which has been dismissed by the order dated 8-9-89. Not satisfied with the aforesaid, they have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of those proceedings on the ground that they amount to misuse of the process of the Court.2. Record of the trial Magistrate indicates that officer-in-charge of police station Majhouli filed the charge-sheet on 21-2-89 alleging commission of offences under Section 498A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge-sheet indicates that a report was lodged by one Suraiya Parveen, the wife of applicant No. 3 Abdul Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ16
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. Proceedings were pending before the Arbitrator appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act No. 30 of 1952) for determination of compensation. The land in question was then held by Darbarilal who figured as claimant in those proceedings. Before, however, award could be pronounced, Darbarilal died. Petitioner then made an application for substitution of his name in place of deceased Darbarilal, claiming title to the land on the basis of a will allegedly executed by Darbarilal in petitioner's favour. At the same time, respondents 7 and 8, Dault Ram Yadav and Shiv Charan Yadav, respectively, made an application for substitution of their names in place of Darbarilal claiming to be the legal representatives of Darbarilal alleging that they have inherited the land by succession. Learned Arbitrator, by an order dated 16-3-1985, pronounced the award and concluded the proceedings without deciding the entitlement of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)IIILLJ897MP; 1991(0)MPLJ513
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.11.1989 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Cr. Case No. 6 of 1990 whereby he has under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code') ordered issue of process against the petitioner on the complaint filed by the Factory Inspector, Indore.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these: The petitioner is an occupier within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). According to the complaint he contravened the provisions of Section 48 of the said Act and Rule 87 of the Madhya Pradesh Factories Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules'). He is, therefore, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act.3. The learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and passed the impugned order.4. It is not in controversy that the impugned order is revisable. In this connection reference may use...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ606
K.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal was initially directed against the order of acquittal dated 30-1-1987 passed by the A.C.J.M., Indore in Criminal Case No. 468 of 1983 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, (for short the 'Act'); 1955 and it has been ordered that the sale-proceeds of the seized rice be paid to the respondent No. 1, Omprakash with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of seizure till payment.2. Circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: According to the prosecution on 20-1-1976 on receipt of information Manpur Police seized the truck loaded with 100 quintals of rice. It was standing by the side of A.B. Road, Manpur.3. The rice belonged to the respondent No. 1 and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were respectively, the owner and the driver of the truck.4. The Manpur Police eventually prosecuted the respondents for contravention of Clause 4 of the M. P. Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1971 (fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ67
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The Petitioner is a tenant in residential premises. Proceedings for eviction were initiated against him before the Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter III-A of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The matter came up to this Court, vide order dated 3-11-1989 passed in Civil Revision No.. 17/89. This Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority but granted the petitioner time till 31-3-1990 for vacating the premises subject to an undertaking to be filed by the petitioner in terms of this Court's order. The order of this Court was not challenged further and achieved a finality. On 25-4-1990, the petitioner moved an application before the R.C.A. raising an objection that the landlord/non-petitioner being not a landlord contemplated by Section 23-J of the Act. the order directing ejectment of the petitioner in proceedings initiated by the landlord/non-petitioner was without jurisdiction and hence unexecutabie. The objection ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ101
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated 19-6-1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Criminal Appeal No. 152/1989 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code has been dismissed in default.2. Section 385 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code') provides that if the appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily, it shall cause notice regarding the hearing of the appeal to be given to the persons therein enumerated. Section 386 ibid provides that after perusing the record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears and in case of an appeal under Section 377 or Section 378, the Accused, if he appears, the appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal.3. In the decision in Dr. Jainendra Kumar's case, A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ75
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The accused/petitioner is one of the two charged with offences Under Sections 304B and 306, Indian Penal Code. The two accused are respectively mother-in-law and the husband of the unfortunate bride Smt. Suneeta, who has died of poisoning within two years of the date of her marriage.2. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the. charges Under Sections 304B and 306, Indian Penal Code are contradictory with each other; the two cannot be tried at a time; and that a charge Under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code cannot be framed when the allegation is that the victim had committed suicide. In short, it is submitted that charge Under Section 306, Indian Penal Code having been framed, the charge Under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code was prima facie misconceived and hence is liable to be quashed.3. The prosecution alleges and there is material available in the challan papers pointing out to the fact that the bride was subjected to con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991CriLJ268
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The accused/petitioner is one of the two charged with offences under Section 304B and 306 I.P.C. The two accused are respectively mother-in-law and the husband of the unfortunate bride Smt. Suneeta, who has died of poisoning within two years of the date of her marriage.2. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges under Section 304B and 306 I.P.C. are contradictory with each other; the two cannot be tried at a time; and that a charge under Section 304B, I.P.C. cannot be framed when the allegation is that the victim had committed suicide. In short, it is submitted that charge under Section 306 I.P.C. having been framed, the charge under Section 304B, I.P.C. was prima facie misconceived and hence is liable to be quashed.3. The prosecution alleges and there is material available in the challan papers pointing out to the fact that the bride was subjected to continued ill-treatment amounting to cruelty and harassment in co...
Tag this Judgment!