Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Madanlal Bansal and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ402
ORDERB.C. Varma, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioners, under due licences, carry on the business of exhibition of films on television through recorded cassettes. They challenge the demand of duty levied on such exhibition of films through Video Cassette Recorders, chargeable per show in terms of the provisions of the M. P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936, as amended by M. P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax (Amendment) Act, 1983. The contention is that the levy being on entertainment should only be per person to whom entertainment is provided and not per show.2. The M. P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936, provides for levy of a duty in respect of admission to theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainment. According to Section 2(a), the expression 'admission to an entertainment' includes admission to any place in which the entertainment is held. Section 3, requires every proprietor of an entertainment to pay to the State Government...
Shiv Charan Lal Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ596
ORDER1. We place on record the valuable assistance Shri Sharma has rendered in disposal of this petition. He has laboured to trace an important Government circular of 1-11-1971 of which a copy is placed on record. Counsel has also drawn our attention to the fact that the subsequent Government circular dated 22-8-1980 nowhere says that the earlier Notification of 1971 shall be deemed superseded. He has submitted that both notifications are to be read together and indeed subsequent one has to be read as supplementary only.2. The impugned order in this case is dated 9-12-1989 by which the clerk of Court of the Office of District and Sessions Judge, Bhind informed the petitioner Shivcharanlal Saxena that his application dated 30-11-1989 for compassionate appointment has been rejected. It is stated that the petitioner was not qualified for the appointment in terms of clause (5) of Circular dated 22-8-1980. He was asked to appear at the interview and take chance for a merit appointment.3. Sh...
Shrikishan @ Chukku S/O Raghunath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ85
ORDERK.K. Varma, J.1. Applicant by Shri B. R. Sharma, Advocate.2. State by Shri C. S. Dixit, Dy. Government Advocate.3. They are heard.4. Applicant Shrikrishan alias Chukku was arrested on 31-1-1989. He and three others have been charge-sheeted Under Sections 302, 307 and 341/34, Indian Penal Code. The case came up before the Court of Session for the first time in August 1989. Admittedly, charges have not been framed in this case so far.5. The Additional Sessions Judge trying the case had been clearly amiss in this case. It does not appear that the accused persons were without counsel on the dates they were not produced from the jail. If counsel are there, arguments on charge can be heard and charges can be framed Counsel appearing for the defence cannot lawfully refuse to argue the case on the question of framing of charge on the ground that their client has not been produced from jail.6. It is apparent that the applicant has been in custody for about 19 months. The manner in which th...
Churamani S/O Ramprapanna BrahmIn and anr. Vs. Ramadhar S/O Ganesh Pra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ311
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit (C. S. No. 14-A of 1983) for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Satna. According to the plaintiffs, pursuant to partition of joint ancestral lands between the common ancestors of the parties, the suit lands had fallen to the share of Badri and Brijbhushan and the remaining lands had fallen to the share of Ramnivas. On the death of Badri and Brijbhushan, the suit lands had devolved on Suryadeen, Shyamsunder and Ramsunder and, thereafter, as a result of partition between the said persons, they finally devolved on the plaintiffs. On the other hand, after the death of Ramni was, the other lands had devolved on his widow Sarmania and after her death the said lands devolved on defendants Nos. 1 to 11.2. According to the further case of the plaintiffs-petitioners, though the suit lands had devolved on them in the manner as stated above, and they conti...
Prema Bai W/O Ram Shankar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ402
ORDERK.K. Varma, J. 1. Applicants by Shri V.K. Sexena, Advocate.2. State by Shri C.S. Dixit, Dy. Government Advocate.3. The learned Sessions Judge, Guna, erred in thinking that he had no jurisdiction or power to consider the applicants' application under Section 438(1), Criminal Procedure Code.4. The present applicants apperehend their arrest in Criminal Original Case No. 480/90, registered on a Police report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act. The offence punishable under Section 498Ais admittedly a non-bailable one. The Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case. It seems that the Police described the applicants as absconding accused persons. The Magistrate ordered issue of warrants of arrest. Accordingly, non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against applicants Prema Bai (aged 65 years), Ragini (aged 32 years), Mandakini (aged 35 years), residents of Dibiapur, District Etawah (U.P.) and against ...
Shankarlal S/O Ratanlal and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ445
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-9-1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla in Criminal Case No. 339/89 where by the application filed by the petitioners on 3-9-1989 objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case has been rejected.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these : - Police Thandla on 9-8-1989 prosecuted the petitioners in respect of offences Under Sections 37 and 39 of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915 (for short 'the Act') allegedly committed on 29-4-1988. The petitioners put in appearance and filed the aforesaid application stating that cognizance of the aforesaid offences which are non-cognizable could not be taken on police charge-sheet and further that the prosecution is time barred.3. The learned Magistrate held that as the excise commissioner has specially permitted the police in the matter, no exception can be taken to the prosecution. Regarding limitation it has been...
Ram Kumar Agarwal Vs. Ramkishan Tayal Fouji and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: AIR1991MP188; 1991(0)MPLJ360
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The plaintiff has come up in appeal aggrieved by an order of the trial Court holding an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to be not maintanable on account of bar created by Section 69(1) of Partnership Act, 1932.2. The plaintiff and defendants entered into a partnership on 15-12-1976. It appears; that the defendant No. 1 received certain payments relating to partnership and misappropriated the amount to his own use without distributing the same in accordance with the terms of partnership. On 1-6-1979, an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed seeking filing of the partnership agreement, incorporating the arbitrationagreement, in the Court and, thereafter, taking account through arbitration of the amount due and payable to the plaintiff and awarding the same to the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff also moved an application seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from realising any other payments due to the ...
Manohar Singh and ors. Vs. Hind Kumar Kohli and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: AIR1991MP373
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is an appeal by the non-applicants Nos. 2 to 4 under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, against an order dated 28-6-1988, passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 52/ 1987, by Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, whereby the trial Court under Order 38, Rule 5, CPC, directed the non-applicants Nos. 2 to 5 (appellants and respondent No. 5 herein) to furnish security for Rs. 2,00,000/- promising to pay the amount up to this extent jointly and severally to Jagdishchandra, non-applicant No. 1/respondent No. 4, in case the award is made the rule of the Court and to satisfy the decree which may ultimately be passed against them, within fifteen days from 28-6-1988, failing which a warrant of attachment of the two properties as mentioned in para 11 of non-applicant No. 1/respondent No.4's application dated 4-5-1987 was ordered to be issued.2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants and one Pravin Kaur, respondent No. 5, and Jagdishch...
Manjulabai Vs. Jayant Vitamins Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas443(MP)
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Company Petitions Nos. 6 of 1989 (Sardarmal Bordia v. Jayant Vitamins Ltd.), 9 of 1989 (Smt. Sadhana Devi v. Jayant Vitamins Ltd.), 12 of 1989 (Smt. Manjulabai v. Jayant Vitamins Ltd.), 15 of 1989 (Ramesh Chordia v. Jayant Vitamins Ltd.) and 7 of 1989 (Ram Mohan Bhagvandas Jain v. Jayant Vitamins Ltd.). All these petitions have been filed for winding up of the company situated at Ratlam known as Jayant Vitamins Ltd. filed under Section 433 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act.2. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') is a company duly registered under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Ratlam. Its authorised share capital consists of 85,00,000 shares of Rs. 10 each, 50,000, 9.5 % redeemable cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each, and 10,00,000 unclassified shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued and subscribed capital consists of 38,74,500 equity shares of Rs. 10 each, and 20,000 9.5 ...
Sikhairam Vs. Gunthibai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC454
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-6-1984, passed in Civil Appeal No. 64-A of 1984 by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Shahdol, (arising out of the judgment and decree dated 17-6-1980, passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1978, by the Court of Civil Judge (Class II), Baohari). whereby the decree of the trial Court has been reversed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the defendants-respondents obtained an ex parte order from the Court of Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur (District Surguja), passed in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1973, dated 7-6-1973, whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance to the two defendants, who were accepted to be the wife and son of the plaintiff. The revision filed against the said order (vide joint Criminal Revision Nos. 58 and 59 of 1978), was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »