Madhya Pradesh Court February 1991 Judgments
Bharat Singh Vs. Kunwar Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: AIR1991MP368; 1993(0)MPLJ547
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The defendant in a suit for declaration of title and issuance of a mandatory injunction who succeeded fully from the trial court, but lost partially in the plaintiffs appeal before the lower appellate court has come up in second appeal.2. The suit property consists of two parts. The plaint alleges that the property shown by letters v] c] d] ?k (also in red colour) is plaintiffs' property, a part of their residential house, while the property shown by letters v] c] l] n is a passage meant for approach to their house. In the month of August 1967, the defendant committed trespass over the passage and started raising construction over it. This led to initiation of proceedings before the Revenue authorities as also under the Criminal Law. However, the defendant did not desist. As the defendant denied the title and right of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the property v] c] d] ?k was owned and possessed by them and also for a mandatory injunction...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Umar Khan Vs. Mst. Gulshan Begam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ899; II(1991)DMC15; 1991(0)MPLJ586
B.M. Lal, J.1. Non-applicant Mst. Gulshan Begam brought an action under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband applicant herein, claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor son Mohd Safa Khan, aged about 7 years, before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Kawardha in Misc. Criminal Case No. 69 of 1989. 2. Mst. Gulshan Begam, non-applicant No. 1, averred that she was married to applicant. Mohd.Umar Khan some time in 1981 and cut of their wed-lock, Mohd. Safar Khan was born. However, she further averred that she was being illtreated by her husband, applicant herein, and also that he husband contracted the second marriage. On these grounds, the application under Section 125 Cri. Pro. Code was made.3. After receipt of the notice, the applicant/husband emerged with the plea that in December. 1983, he had divorced the non-applicant No 1 Mst Gulshan Begam and thereafter, in the month of July 1984, at the request of relatives of the wife (non-applicant No. I, he had...
Tag this Judgment!Shelendrakumar Pare Vs. President, M.P. Gandi Basti Nirmulan Mandal an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ397
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is an employee of M. P. Gandi Basti Nirmulan Mandal (hereinafter called as 'Mandal'). In the year 1982, posts of Anveshaks were advertised and the petitioner was also given an interview call letter for the same post. However, the petitioner was appointed as Nagar Sevak and not as Anveshak. The petitioner went on representing for being appointed as Anveshak but was not appointed so till 17-3-1988, when an order promoting the petitioner to the post of Anveshak was issued. The petitioner has submitted that he was discriminated in the matter of employment as he was superseded by two persons who were appointed as Nagar Sevaks after the petitioner was so appointed. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a return explaining that the petitioner was appointed as Nagar Sevak only and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were also appointed as such. On 19-2-1983, candidates were called for interview and amongst them respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were there. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Bairo Prasad and anr. Vs. Smt. Laxmibai Pateria
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2535
ORDERB.M. Lal, J.1. Daughter-in-law Smt. Laxmi Bai, hereinafter called the non-applicant, has filed a complaint against her father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are the applicants No. 1 Bairo Prasad and No. 2 Smt. Prabha Devi respectively in this revision petition, for taking suitable action against them Under Section 406 of the I.P.C. The said complaint was registered and process Under Section 204 of the Criminal P.C. was issued against the applicants.2. This revision is filed by the 'in-laws of the daughter-in-law, non-applicant, on the grounds inter alia:(i) that the complaint Under Section 200, Cr. P.C., as framed and filed, is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 468, Cr. P.C.(ii) that the case is of civil nature; and as such, no cognizance is required by the criminal court.A third point was also raised though not taken in the memo of revision that a list of witnesses was not furnished along with the copy of the complaint and therefore, the proceedings are vitiated...
Tag this Judgment!Amarchand Vs. Arun Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3001
ORDERB.M. Lal, J.1. The order passed in this Criminal Revision No. 281 of 1990 shall also dispose of Misc. Criminal Case No. 2265 of 1990 (Arun Kumar Jain v. Amarchand Jain).2. The applicant Amarchand filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandwa for taking appropriate action against the non-applicants Arun Kumar and others for an offence punishable Under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code.3. The learned trial Magistrate, having found prima facie case against the non-applicant Arun Kumar framed charge under Section 494, IPC and against the other remaining non-applicants Surajmalji Jain, Pushpa Bai, Sadanand and Smt. Najuk Bai Under Section 494/409, IPC.4. It appears that Amarchand moved a transfer petition before the Apex Court. While rejecting the transfer petition, the Apex Court directed that if the complainant desires to examine some additional witnesses, an opportunity be given to him to examine these witnesses. The complainant, was, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramkumar and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and 3 ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ384
R.K. Verma, J. 1. The petitioners, who are related as father and son have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a public interest litigation for protecting the rights of the petitioner No. 2 Dr. Sunil Kumar Bansal.2. The petitioner No. 2 Dr. Sunilkumar Bansal was given admission in Post Graduate Diploma Course in M.G.M. Medical College in Orthopaedics in the academic year commencing on 26-11-89 and ending on 25-11-90. It has been stated that after having completed the diploma course the petitioner No. 2 has now passed the diploma examination.3. It is alleged by the petitioners that pursuant to selections on the basis of merit the name of the petitioner No. 2 was put in the waiting list of Institutional Merit Candidates for admission to Post Graduation Degree of M.S. in Orthopaedics pertaining to the academic year commencing on 26-11-89 and ending on 25-11-90. The petitioners have also alleged that respondent No. 4 Dr. Anil Sharma who was admitted to Post...
Tag this Judgment!Harikant Joshi Vs. Assistant Registrar and Returning Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ789
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is a petition by share-holder of the Ujjain Paraspar Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Ujjain (for short 'the Bank'), a Co-operative Society duly registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). On 2-2-1991, programme of election to the committee of the Bank was published by respondent No. 2, the General Manager of the Bank. According to this programme the following posts of members were offered to be filled in by election : -a) from general category 11b) from female 1c) from Scheduled Caste 1d) from Scheduled Tribe 1Total 14The reason for the aforesaid break-up of elective posts was stated to be the amended provisions of Section 48(8) of the Act which was said to prescribe the number of elected and co-opted members of the committee to be 15. The contention of the petitioner is that bye-law 28(1) of the Bye-laws of the Bank provides that not more than 10 Directors will be elected from amongst the share-holders. According to the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarwatibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1991ACJ797
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by the appellant, insurer, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'insurance company'), against an award dated 9th January, 1990, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 13 of 1987, whereby on an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Old Act') compensation of Rs. 32,000/-has been awarded to claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the death of Ramesh Sen arising out of the use of a motor vehicle- truck No. UTR 5105. Respondent No. 1 is the widow of deceased Ramesh Sen, respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are the sons and daughters of the deceased.2. The Tribunal on evidence found that the accident occurred on 19.1.1987, when Ramesh Sen was going on the side of a road, he was struck by truck No. UTR 5105 on his back, as a consequence of which he fel...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarswatibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: I(1991)ACC503
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act') by the appellant/insurer/National Insurance Company (for short, 'Insurance Company') against an award dated 9th January, 1990, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, the 'Tribunal') in claim Case No. 13/1987, whereby on an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the 'Old Act') compensation of Rs. 32, 000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 for the death of Ramesh Sen arising out of and use of a motor vehicle-truck No. UTR 5105. Respondent No. 1 is the widow of deceased Ramesh Sen; respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased and respondents No. 3 to 6 are the sons and daughters of the deceased.2. The Tribunal on evidence found that the accident occurred on 19.1.1987, when Ramesh Sen was going on the side of a road, he was struck by truck No. UTR 5105 on his back, as a consequence of which he fell...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sarswati Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC472
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act') by the appellant/insurer/National Insurance Company (for short 'Insurance Company') against an award dated. 9th January,1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, the 'Tribunal') in claim case No. 13/1987, whereby on an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (for short, the 'Old Act') Compensation of Rs. 32,000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 for the death of Ramesh Sen arising out of an use of a motor vehicle-Truck No. UTR 5105, Respondent No. l is the widow of deceased Ramesh Sen, respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased and respondents No. 3 to 6 are the sons and daughters of the deceased.2. The tribunal on evidence found that the accident occurred on 19.1.1986, when Ramesh Sen was going on the side of road he was struck by Truck No. UTR 5105 on his back, as a consequence of which he fell down a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »