Madhya Pradesh Court May 1991 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.
Mohsinali Marchant S/O Hazi Ibrahimbhai Vs. FazalhussaIn S/O Gulamali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ695
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11-2-1988 passed by the District Judge, Ujjain in C. S. No. 8-A 1985, whereby the interim application No. 10 filed Under Order 8, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code was disallowed by the learned District Judge.2. The facts leading to this revision petition, in short, are that the respondent in the present petition has filed civil suit against the present petitioner for taking back the possession of the house on the ground that the defendant-petitioner is a licensee in the house and the house is of the ownership of the plaintiff. The house was given to the defendant by the plaintiff in view of their cordial relations and partnership in the business. However, later on their relations became strained and, therefore, after revoking the licence, the plaintiff wanted the possession of the suit house from the defendant.3. The defendant resisted the suit raising multi-pronged pleas including a plea that the suit house...
United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sukhiabai @ Ramsukhibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC368
ORDERT.N. Singh, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, the Act, the Award passed by Claims Tribunal under Section 140 is challenged by the Insurer on a short ground. The question is, if it was incumbent on the said Tribunal to apportion or 'specify' in the impugned award the 'no fault liability' arising out of accident in which two motor vehicles were used so that the entire amount is not required to be paid by the Insurer who is required to discharge that liability of owner of one of the vehicles only.2. When the appeal came up for admission. I entertained doubt if it could be admitted as the appellant is required as per Section 173 to make deposit of Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount awarded, whichever is less. In the instant case, claimant/respondent No. 1 has been awarded Rs. 7,500/-. Although my attention was drawn to this Court's decision in Jaswant Rao v. Kamlabai : AIR1990MP354 , rendered at the Indore Bench and it was pointed out that the...
Gopal Ramniranjan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ960
ORDERR.D. Shukla, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-11-1985 of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1985 (arising out of the judgment and order dated 13-12-1984 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, passed in Criminal Case No. 1567 of 1979), whereby the conviction of the accused-applicant Under Section 7 read with Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been confirmed, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, has been modified to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of. payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The brief history of the case is that the Food Inspector, Ambikapur, filed a complamt against the accused on 3-11-1979, with the allegation that the accused was found selling milk near Police Station, Rajpur, on 7-9-1979. He obtained sample ...
Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ259
ORDERR.D. Shukla, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-11-1985 of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1985 (arising out of the judgment and order dated 13-12-1984 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, passed in Criminal Case No. 1567 of 1979), whereby the conviction of the accused-applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been confirmed, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, has been modified to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The brief history of the case is that the Food Inspector, Ambikapur, filed a complaint against the accused on 3-11-1979, with the allegation that the accused was found selling milk near Police Station, Rajpur, on 7-9-1979. He obtained sample ...
Manaklal and anr. Vs. Hajarilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC428
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award given by Shri S.P. Shrivastava, Second Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim case No. 34 of 81 on 22.7.1982.2. The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the appellants filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motorr Vehicles act before the lower Tribunal alleging that on 7.11.80 at about 11.30 a.m. the son of the claimants named Manohar was standing in front on the Roadways Booking Office at Sanwer. At that time respondent No. 2 Lokendra-kumar driving the bus CPO-9035 approached the spot driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and so driving dashed the bus against the deceased Manohar from the front side of the vehicle. As a result of the impact Manohar was thrown at a distance of 15 to 20 ft and received injuries on the head, chest and other parts of the body and later on 11.11.80 he succumbed to the injuries in M.Y. Hospital. Manohar, at the time of his death, was 17 years of age, u...
Shri Hari Shankar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP42; 1991(0)MPLJ847
S.K. Jha, C.J.1. Shri J.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued very strenuously that it be declared that the provisions of Section 20 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are ultra vires as impinging upon the provision of equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution. The bone of contention of his argument is that there is no rational nexus between the object to be achieved by the statutory provision and the object for which the Act was brought on the statute book.2. Before dealing with the question of vires, it is necessary to reproduce Section 20 of the M.P. Accommodation Contorl Act, 1961:'Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases: Where the landlord in respect of any accommodation is any company or other body corporate or any local authority or any public institution and the accommodation is required for the use of employee of such landlord, or in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance of its activities, then, notwith...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohandas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ30
S.K. Chawla, J.1. The State has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents of the alternative charges under Sections 302 and 302/34, Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Harhuram.2. Deceased Harhuram was a resident of village Kachanda, P. S. Seorinarayan, District Bilaspur. Just opposite to the thrashing ground of his house, there exists the house of Sukritdas (DW 2) with a public road between them. Some hot words were exchanged between deceased Harhuram and Sukritdas at the time of the incident i.e. on 30-12-1982 at about 7 a.m. At that time respondent No. 1 Mohandas, who is son of Sukritdas, had come out of his house armed with a lathi. It is not disputed that he had dealt a lathi on the head of the deceased Harhuram causing him to be injured.3. The prosecution alleged that the incident started because Sukritdas (DW 2) began to forcibly remove the gate (Rachar) of the thrashing ground of deceased Harhuram. This led to exchange of words between the deceased and ...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohandas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ101
S.K. Chawla, J.1. The State has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents of the alternative charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC for the murder of one Harhuram.2. Deceased Harhuram was a resident of village Kachanda, P.S. Seorinarayan, District Bilaspur. Just opposite to the thrashing ground of his house, there exists the house of Sukritdas (DW 2) with a public road between them. Some hot words were exchanged between deceased Harhuram and Sukritdas at the time of the incident i.e. on 30-12-82 at about 7 a.m. At that time respondent No. 1 Mohandas, who is son of Sukritdas, had come out of his house armed with a lathi. It is not disputed that he had dealt a lathi on the head of the deceased Harhuram causing him to be injured.3. The prosecution alleged that the incident started because Sukritdas (DW 2) began to forcibly remove the gate (Rachar) of the thrashing ground of deceased Harhuram. This led to exchange of words between the deceased and Sukritdas. Respon...
Prem Narayan Vs. Ram Vilash
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ841
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. This revision is by the defendant whose two applications, one for making a counter-claim under Order 8, Rule 6-A, C.P.C., and the other for amendment of the written statement for incorporating set-off under Orders 8, Rule 6, C.P.C. have been rejected by the trial Court.2. It is not disputed that the non-applicant/plaintiff's suit is one for declaration of his title to certain property and also for an injunction, restraining the applicant from interfering with the non-applicant's possession over that property. The defendant-applicant filed a written statement, contesting the non-applicant's claim. After filing of the written statement and when some proceedings in the suit took place, the defendant-applicant made these two applications. While rejecting the first application for raising a counter-claim, the lower Court has observed that since the applicant has already filed awritten statement, the counter-claim cannot be entertained. In my opinion, in taking such a v...
Jaishree Belbanshi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ771
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 18-4-1991, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 1991 setting aside the bail order dated 28-2-1991, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara Under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The police station, Parasia has registered an offence Under Sections 317/318/302 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 105/90 against the applicant on the allegation that dead body of one illegitimate child was found by the Parasia Police Station in district Chhindwara on 2-3-1990, which offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant.3. In the earlier investigation, nothing was found against the applicant. It was only on or about, in the month of December, 1990, that the police has registered this offence against the applicant. The applicant filed a bail application Under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Court but that app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›