Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Brijrajsingh and ors. Vs. Bitto Devi (Smt.) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ192
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Judges must be beware of hard constructions and strained inferences; for there is no worse torture than torture of laws - said Francis Bacon. Should the law be so interpreted and implemented as to let the litigation go into a circuitous and torturous path of journey or should it be so interpreted as to cut-short litigation keeping in view the purpose and object behind its enactment, is the question staring at the Court hearing this reference.2. The Code of Civil Procedure (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 29 of 1984) introduced Rule 3-B, in Order 1, and Rule 4-A, in Order 6, in the body of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applied to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Of late, it has come to the notice of this Court that the provision is being utilised by the appellate Courts as a tool for earning easy disposal of appeals by making orders of remand unmindful of the fact that a convenient resort to that provision has the result of setting at naught the concluded ...
Hariram S/O Phul Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2135
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. For selling adulterated goat-milk, the petitioner suffered conviction Under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, the 'Act', and a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He appealed unsuccessfully and is now in this Court challenging the verdict in this revision.2. Prosecution's case, shortly put, is that on 20-10-1983, at about 7-00 a.m., the petitioner was found carrying on a bicycle in a can, about 8 litres of goat-milk which he had brought for sale in Guna town. He was accosted by the Food Inspector, P.W. 1 at Choudhari Mohalla near Jain temple in Guna town and sample was taken of the milk in presence of witnesses, P.W. 2, Bhanupratap-singh and P.W. 3, Shivram. A Panchanama was prepared, proved as Ex. P/6, but other contemporaneous documents executed and proved as Exs. P/4 and P/5 are the statutory notice contemplated under form VI and the receipt of the sale-pric...
Molyabai Vs. Vishram Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ69; II(1992)DMC33
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 7.2.1991 passed by the III Ad-ditional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, confirming the order dated 9.5.1989 passedby the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur in a case under Section 125 of theCr. P.C.2. The applicant wife came before the Court alleging that she wasmarried to the non-applicant in the year 1981. In the year 1986 she was deserted by her husband. On 8.3.1987 the non-applicant took another wife. Theapplicant initiated proceedings under S. 13. of the Hindu Marriage Act on10.3.1987 and because of a settlement out of Court on 11.12.87 the marriagestood dissolved. The applicant has further contended that she is not able tomaintain herself and the non-applicant has sufficient sources to maintain herbut is neglecting to do so.3. The application has been mainly contnded on the ground that theapplicant has accepted Rs. 1500/- by way of full and final settlement towa...
Sumativijay JaIn Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ97
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an application for revision challenging framing of charge under Section 120B and Section 212 of the IPC against applicant Sumativijay Jain. The applicant is being tried along with non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 his co-accused, who have been charged Under Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 302/34, IPC respectively. The court has framed charges Under Section. 120B and Section 212 of the IPC against the applicant.2. Shri P. K. Saxena, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no material to raise even a suspicion against the applicant in the case, there is no legal evidence to connect the applicant with the crime, that the charge has been framed on the basis of hearsay evidence of the witnesses, which is inadmissible in evidence and no specific part has been alleged to have been played by the applicant and a vague charge has been framed against him.3. Shri S. M. Bapat, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted ...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Devi Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ703
K.L. Issrani, J. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment and finding dated 12-11-1984 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul, in Criminal Case No. 2768/80, acquitting the respondent for an offence under Section 7(1)(ii) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. According to the prosecution, on 5-12-1980, at about 7.30 A.M., a sample of buffalo milk was taken from, the respondent by Food Inspector K.P. Pancholi, Public Analyst found the milk to be below the standard.3. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on two counts:--(i) that it was not proved that the respondent was not selling the milk, and (ii) that the report of the Public Analyst sent to the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Act was received by him or not. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisions of Section 13(2) are not mandatory and the sale to the Food Inspector is also a sale. The judgment passed by the trial Magistrate deserves to b...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. Kesharbai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC141
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is the second attempt of the applicanthusband to get an order of maintenance passed against him for paying maintenance to his wife and minor children, his revision application against thetrial Court's judgment having failed. It is submitted that the proceedingswere initiated 4 years after the claimant/wife was alleged to have beenforcibly driven out of her matrimonial home. It was further submitted onbehalf of the applicant/husband that the non-applicant No. 1 wife had desertedthe applicant. She had gone to her parents place at the time of delivery of theyoungest child and did not return thereafter without any reasonable cause. Itwas submitted that the second marriage of the applicant was not proved and thefinding in this regard was based on in admissible evidence and unreasonableinference from entries in ration card. It was also disputed that the nonapplicant No. 1 was unable to maintain herself and the children. It was lastlysubmitted that the applicant was read...
Sunita JaIn Vs. Suresh Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC244
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. This is an appeal by the wife filed underSection 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (in short, the 'Act'), againstthe decree, declaring her marriage with the respondent void under Sections12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act on the basis of a petition filed by the husband.2. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the appellant with therespondent was performed at Durg on 19.6.1987 in accordance with thecustomary rites prevailing amongst Jains. On 4.1.1988 the respondent filed apetition for declaring his marriage with the appellant void on the groundsmentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section, 12. or in thealternative, for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. It was allegedthat from before the date of marriage, the appellant was suffering from mentaldisorder, known as Schizophrenia and that suppressing this fact, the consentof the respondent for the said marriage was obtained. These allegations weredenied by the appellant and the petition was res...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shabirkhan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: I(1992)ACC313; 1992ACJ873; [1993]76CompCas100(MP); 1992(0)MPLJ11
R.K. Verma, J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 262 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Nisar Khan and Anr.), M. A. No. 263 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Ishaq and Anr.), M. A. No. 264 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Razzak Khan and Anr.), M. A. No. 265 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kale Khan and Ors.), M. A. No. 267 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kale Khan and Ors.), M. A. No. 268 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayyub Beg and Anr.), M. A. No. 269 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheikh Amin and Ors.), M. A. No. 270 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bismillah and Ors.), and M. A. No. 266 of 1989 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v, Jahid Hussain and Anr.).2. This appeal as also the connected Appeals Nos. 262 to 270 of 1989 are filed by the insurance company against accident claims interim award dated June 29, 1989, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Garoth, in Claim Cases Nos. 16 of 1986, 1...
Ashok Ambalal Shah Vs. Guruvachan Rajsingh Bagga
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ438
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J.1. The present revision petition is against the order dated 23-3-1991 passed by Smt. Beena Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh in Criminal Case No. 139/91 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the private complaint filed by the non-applicant against the applicant. The applicant prays for quashing of the proceedings.2. According to the applicant, he is the resident of Ahmedabad-Gujarat. He is a businessman. He never visited Damoh and he does not know the non-applicant, Guruvachan Singh, and had never met him.3. The non-applicant has filed a complaint against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh on 23-3-1991 alleging that the applicant came to Damoh and wanted an amount of Rs. 60,000/- for his business purpose, which the applicant advanced after taking the post-dated cheque on 27-6-1990 in the presence of Ishwar Singh Vasu, with whom the applicant is said to have come and also in ...
Babu Lal Janved and ors. Vs. Parwati Bhogiram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ282
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The judgment-debtor/petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the executing Court directing recovery of mesne profits from them to the decree-holders/respondents Nos. 1 to 3, consistently with the decree passed by the original Court.2. Learned counsel for decree-holder has made available, a copy of judgment in the original suit which shows that the plaintiffs/respondents had sued the petitioners for partition of a joint holding and also for recovery of mesne profits. By judgment and decree dated 7-8-1991, the trial Court directed the suit holding to be partitioned and an amount of Rs. 400/- to be paid by the defendant/judgment-debtor to the plaintiffs/decree-holders by way of past mesne profits with future mesne profits calculated @ Rs. 400/- per annum, from the date of the suit till partition of the holding.3. Admittedly, the partition has not yet taken place. The decree-holders have taken out execution for recovery of the mesne profits as above.4. The decree-ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »