Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Mst. Premwati Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
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...
A.G. Prayagee Vs. S.C. Gupta, Principal Secretary, Government of Madhy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: 1991MPLJ237
ORDERFaizanuddin, J.1. This is a petition for taking action against the respondent for non-compliance of order/direction dated 25-2-1988 passed by this Court in Misc. Petitions Nos. 950 and 2074 both of 1984.2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was Executive Engineer. He amongst otters was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 26-7-1983 but as some disciplinary action against him was in contemplation, the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were kept in a sealed cover. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 18-1-1984 and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner challenged his suspension in this Court in Misc. Petition No. 950 of 1984. The petitioner filed another petition in this Court being Misc. Petition No. 2074/84 for quashing the departmental proceedings on the ground of undue delay in disposal thereof. Both the aforesaid petitions were disposed o...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Pushpa P. Mansukhani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ686; 1991(0)MPLJ337
B.C. Varma, J.1. The appellants were defendants in the lower Court. The first appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, insured the life of late P. M. Mansukhani whose widow the respondent-plaintiff is for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- under Life Insurance Policy No. 29271374. This policy came into effect from 28-10-1976. The insured paid the annual premium of Rs. 2,200/-. While getting him insured, the appellants got the insured medically examined first on 15-5-1976. Again, on 23-9-1976, the appellants through Dr. M. P. Chandrakar, reaffirmed the health of the insured, Shri Mansukhani and it is thereafter that the proposal to insure him was accepted on 18-11-1976. Shri Mansukhani, however, could not pay the premium due on 28-10-1979 and, therefore, according to the appellants, the policy lapsed. It is common ground that this policy so lapsed could well have been revived under the terms of the policy. Consequently, Shri Mansukhani made an application praying for revival of that lapsed po...
M.P. State Road Corporation Vs. BalasIn Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC518
B.C. Verma, J.1. The Order in this Appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 1981 (M.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Laxman Singh Bais).2. On Katni-JabalpurRoad, Bus No. MPW 8021 owned by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and motor cycle M.P.W 9443 collided and an accident took place. Vijay Singh and Ramkrishna were on the pillion of the motor cycle which was driven by the owner Laxman Singh. The bus was being driven by appellant Jagdish. As a result of that accident, Vijay Singh died while the other pillion rider sustained injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased Vijay Singh claimed compensation under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Vijay Singh while Laxman Singh claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The claim was tried by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur which by two separate awards delivered on 7.8.1980, held both the drivers negligent A sum of Rs. 10,000/- ...
Manmati and anr. Vs. Radheyshyam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC209
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. Applicants feel aggrieved by the order dated 16-1-88 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Sarguja in M.Cr.C. No, 14/84 as approved by order dated 15-2-1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja) in Cr. Revision No. 44/88, dismissing their application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and have approached this Court by tiling this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. There is no dispute that the applicant Shivshanker is the minor son of the applicant Smt. Manmati. They riled an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class 1 Surajpur on 12-11-84 alleging that the non-applicant Radheshyam was legally married husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2. They further alleged that the non-applicant has abandoned them since last about four months and is refusing even to maintain them. It was therefore prayed that the Court be pleased to order maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500./- per month.3. The non-applicant denied this allega...
Dr. Y.S. Chen Vs. Batulbai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: AIR1991MP90; 1993(0)MPLJ320
S.D. Jha, J.1. The second appeal by tenant-defendant by order dated 23-1-1985 was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, plaintiffs sister's sons could be held to be members of the family, for whose requirement decree for eviction on the ground specified in Section 12(1)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, could be passed?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court below has erred in holding that the plaintiff had become owner of the suit accommodation?'2. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit for eviction against the defendant-tenant claiming that she had become owner of groundfloor of House No. 390 Bohra Oli, Neemuch Cant consisting of four rooms, toilet and bathroom by virtue of gift made in her favour by her mother Hussainabi on 25-8-1976. Being a Mahommedan she was governed by the Mahommedan Law in the matter of gift also. The defendant was informe...
Shabana Minhaz Vs. Shakil Ahmed Qureshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC508
B.M. Lal, J.1. This revision is directed against the interim order passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal in M.J.C. No. 73 of 1989 on 12-1-1990, in an application under Section 15 of the Guardian and Wards Act.2. The short facts leading to this revision are as under :Applicant Shabana Minhaz and the non-applicant Shakil Ahmed Qureshi were wedded at Bhopal on 29-12-1981. They lived together happily as husband and wife and out of the said wed-lock, a male child named Kumel Shakil alias Umar Shakil was born on 15-12-1982.After some time, their relations became stranded and the wife started living with her parents alongwith the child.3. A similar application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was filed vide M. J. C. No. 50/84 before the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal and the same was decided on 13-9-1984, against which a Misc. Appeal No. 1/85 was filed by the present applicant Mst. Shabana Minhaz against her hu...
Bombay Pharma Products and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ404
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-8-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1328 of 1986 extending the period of limitation as provided under Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code').2. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are these : On 26-7-1980 Shri B.K. Dube, Drug Inspector took the sample of Dexamethasone tablets (Batch No. B. L. 8080) from M/s. Bombay Pharma Products, Indore the petitioner No. 1 The other petitioners are the partners in the said firm.3. One part of the sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Bhopal who in his report dated 7-10-1980 opined that the sample was not of the standard quality. A show cause notice along with the copy of the report of the Government Analyst, as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') was issued to the firm on 15-10-1980. On its part the firm sent a wr...
Bombay Pharma Products and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ707
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-8-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1328 of 1986 extending the period of limitation as provided Under Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code').2. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are these. On 26-7-80 Shri B. K. Dube, Drug Inspector took the sample of Dexa-methasone tablets (Batch No. B.L. 8080) from M/s. Bombay Pharma Products, Indore the petitioner No. 1. The other petitioners are the partners in the said firm.3. One part of the sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Bhopal who in his report dated 7-10-80 opined that the sample was not of the standard quality. A show-cause notice along with the copy of the report of the Government Analyst, as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') was issued to the firm on 15-10-80. On its part the firm sent a written...
Krishnakumar Vs. Kiran
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC248
K.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition by the husband is directed against the revisional order dated 11-9-1989 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1987 whereby setting aside the order dated 21-3-87 passed by the A.C.J.M. Barwani dismissing the non-applicant's application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), the petitioner has been ordered to pay a monthly allowance in the sum of Rs. 400/- for the maintenance of the non-applicant.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these. The non-applicant on 10-10-85 filed the application under Section 125 of the Code in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barwani alleging that the petitioner has been cruel to her and had driven her out of the marital home in April 1985 and has refused to maintain her. The application was opposed.3. At the conclusion of the evidence, the learned Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid applicat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »