Madhya Pradesh Court April 1992 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.
Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ750
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of Cr. A. No. 238 of 90 (Rajendra Prasad v. State of M.P.) and Cr. A. No. 239 of 1990 (Azizuddin Qureshi v. State of M.P.) filed by the accused persons challenging their conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Ujjain in Spl. Case No. 3 of 1986 dated 15-6-1990, whereby the appellant Rajendra Prasad has been convicted under Section 161, IPC, Section 5(1)(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years, 2 years, and fine of Rs. 2000/- respectively. Appellant Azizuddin Qureshi has been convicted under Section 161, IPC, Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years, 2 years, and fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively for committing the aforesaid offences. The sentences of both the accused are directed to run concurrently.2. The facts leading to these appeals, in short, are that the State of M.P. through Special Police E...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hazari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas345(MP)
V.D. Gyani, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated June 17, 1991, passed by the member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas, in Claim Case No. 71 of 1989. By this order, the learned member has directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 7,500 as interim compensation based on 'no-fault' liability.2. Shri Dandwate, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, submitted that it is not a question of depositing money. The real difficulty lies in ascertainment of the insurance policy issued by the appellant. Despite the fact that the tractor-owner and the driver are parties to the claim petition, they are not coming forward with the insurance policy, if any. It is this difficulty which the appellant-insurance company is facing and hence this appeal.3. Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, clearly provides that, in case of accident by any person driving a motor vehicle on any public place, he is, on being required by an authorised police offic...
Hanuman Prasad Rajak Vs. Kashibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: I(1992)DMC608
Gulab Chand Gupta, J.1. This appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is by the plaintiff-husband who feels aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20.8.1990 passed by Fifth Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 23-A/90 dismissing his application for divorce.2. The parties are legally married husband and wife and governed by the Act. They were married on 20.2.1970 and have a male child born to them. They are living separately since 4.6.1976. It may be mentioned that the appellant's elder brother Kamal Kishore was married to the elder sister of the respondent, viz. Vimlabai but the relationship between them has been brought to an end by a decree of divorce. The appellant filed an application seeking divorce Under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He alleged that the treatment of the respondent with him, his mother and paternal aunt was cruel and she even used to abuse and assault them. This has...
Dimple Vs. Lajjaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ967
T.N. Singh, J.1. The question of maintainability of the revision is the moot point to be decided in this matter and on that counsel are heard.2. Against an order dated 30.10.1991 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mcrena, rejecting an application under Section 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the instant revision is preferred. On merits, nothing need be said on the validity of the order though it may still be mentioned that the Tribunal found no case of 'permanent disablement' made out to make order for interim compensation in favour of the applicant, the revisionist.3. For the insurer, impleaded as non-applicant No. 3, Mr. V.K. Sharma has appeared and has challenged the maintainability of the petition. He has placed implicit reliance on this court's recent Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar 1992 ACJ 200 (MP). He has submitted that two of the Hon'ble Judges in clear and categorical terms held that no appeal against order passed ...
Mahendra Arora and anr. Vs. the Transport Commissioner, M.P., Gwalior ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP29
T.N. Singh, J. 1. With this petition, six other matters are heard analogously involving the common question of law of some importance. By this common Order, all seven Matters, of which brief particulars are itemised below, are disposed of. M. P. No.Petitioner/ ownerVehicle No.Seizure Date407/92M. AroraMP 07 194327-2-1992(Jointly)R. K. AroraMPG 7171-do-431/92M. S. JadonMKW 7744-do-446/92M. AroraCIG 760528-2-1992449/92R. P. SharmaMP 06 7527-do-461/92R. N. SikarwarMKH 77307-3-1992462/92Ashok ParasharCPG 5727-2-1992563/92S. S. TomarMP-06-A-14119-3-1992(Jointly)A. K. ShrivastavaMP-06-A-1601-do-Subhash PathakMP-06-6838-do-2. The common feature of all these cases is that the vehicles were seized by the Flying squad of the Transport Department operating on different dates in Gwalior region in different areas. Except in one (the instant petition), in all other matters, State of M.P., through Secretary, Transport Department, is impleaded as the first respondent. During the course of hearing of t...
Ku. Sapna Alia Vs. Vyavasaik Pariksha Mandal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP68; 1993(0)MPLJ312
S.K. Chawla, J.1. An unsuccessful candidate in PMT Examination has filed this writ petition in a bid to get admission in M.B.B.S. Course.2. The petitioner is Ku. Sapna Alia. She had appeared in July 1991 in PMT Examination conducted by respondent No. 1, Professional Examination Board, M.P., Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). It is the petitioner's case that in September 1991, she came to know from Marks Sheet, Annexure P-1, supplied to her, that she had been disqualified in Zoology paper and no marks were for that reason assigned to her. This had greatly reduced her merit, which was evident from the fact that she had secured 274 out of 300 marks in Physics and 279 out of 300 marks in Chemistry. She had secured 142 out of 300 marks in English. Her performance in Botany paper was however low because she had given that paper in a condition of running fever. In that paper, she had secured 79 out of 300 marks. Even so, her overall performance was that she had secured more than...
Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC118; 1992(61)ELT52(MP)
ORDER1. Shri Kohali, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission.Admit.2. Shri Neema, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India was present yesterday and was requested to take a copy of this petition and make his submissions. Accordingly, he had made his submissions purely confining to the question of law on the matter of grant of injunction.3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 6-2-1992 filed as Annexure-G to the petition.4. Admittedly the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Indore respondent No. 2. He also prayed for staying the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner on account of wrongly availing of Modvat credit on certain goods as mentioned in the order Annexure G. Aggrieved by this refusal of stay the petitioner has now approached this Court.5. The main ground of refusal is that the appellate authority...
Smt. Shakuntala Vs. Shivratan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC266
V.D. Gyani, J.1. Both those appeals are closely inter-connected. They arise out of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Appellant Shakuntalafiled a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband respondentShivratan, who had filed a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The trialCourt while decreeing husband respondent's suit for divorce, dismissed wifeappellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. F.A. 47/88 is directed againstthe dismissal of suit for restitution of conjugal-rights, while appeal No. 46/88is against the judgment and decree of divorce dt. 23.6.1988 passed in CO.Section 3-A/86 by Addl. District Judge, Kukshi.2. Shri Barania, for the appellant and Shri Ahiwasi, for the respondentare heard.3. Appeal No. 46/88 is taken up first.Respondent husband filed a suit for divorce against the appellant on 2.1.86, in the Court of Addl. District Judge Kukshi.4. It is an admitted position that the parties were married at Indoreabout 10 years prior to the fili...
Brahm Swaroop Agarwal and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ574
ORDER1. Herad counsel.In public interest two learned counsel of this Court have preferred this petition complaining that judicial officers are not getting fair deal in the matter of allotment of residential accommodation at Gwalior. They have complained that the Executive is unmindful of the constitutional imperatives that judiciary is an independent wing of the Government and to protect judicial independence is the duty of all the wings of the Government for proper functioning of the judiciary the officers posted at Gwalior should suffer no discrimination and they should get this 'due share' in the matter of allotment of Government Accommodation. Reliance is placed on a latest decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and Ors., (1992) ISCC 119.2. However, there is another special feature of this case to which we must pay attention because on one side allotment rules (which are in fact executive directives) are cited and relied ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›