Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Ku. Anju Khatri Vs. Gyanchand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-25-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2274
ORDERShacheendra Dwivedi, J.1. This case was registered on a letter from the prosecutrix. Ku. Anju Khatri relating to the case registered for an offence under Sections 376/34, I.P.C. wherein, accused Gyanchand and Kamal Jain were apprehended by Police, Vidisha. The two accused having been allowed bail by the trial Court the cancellation thereof and the transfer of the case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (Sh P. D. Maran) is prayed. Earlier, on an application being made by accused Gyanchand for bail, this Court having considered all the available material and the circumstances of the case had dismissed the application under a detailed order dated 18-3-91 in Cr. Misc. Case No. 448/91. On facts, the case of co-accused Kamal Jain is also similar and not distinguishable from accused Gyanchand.2. Later, a further application for bail was made by accused Gyanchand on a special ground of illness of his father, submitting that his presence was required for attending his fat...
Omprakash Neema Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-1992
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT65(MP)
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Pet. Nis. 517 of 92 (Prahlad Das Neema v. Union of India and Anr.), 621 of 92 (Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Union of India and two Ors.), 666 of 92 (Hardayal Singh Dhillon v. Union of India and two Ors.), 667 of 92 (Amrik Singh alias Satnam Singh v. Union of India and two Ors.), 668 of 92 (Omprakash Neema v. Union of India and two Ors.) and 669 of 92 (Nitin Kumar Soni v. Union of India and two Ors.). Wherein identical points have been raised by the detenus, who have been detained under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The facts leading to these petitions, in short, are that on receipt of some reliable information, the Customs and Central Excise officers of Indore Headquarters searched the premises No. 42A, 43C, Sector-5, Sanwar Road, Industrial Area, Indore in the presence of panchas, in the early hours of 27-2-1992. When the search party rea...
A and a Enterprises Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ104
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. A common order in being passed in this petition and Misc. Petition No. 481 of 1992 Ajay Singh s/o Shri Arjun Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which is on the same subject matter.2. This petition arises in the course of a Commission of Enquiry known as Churhat Lottery Commission. The petitioner challenges notification dated 9-1-1992 (Annexure-M), appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, retired Judge of Allahabad High Court as the sole member of the commission in substitution of Hon'ble Shri Justice G. G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, who resigned from the membership of the commission. The two notifications of appointment of Justice G. G. Sohani and thereafter Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, have resulted in the ouster of Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, the then sitting Judge of Madras High Court (now retired) from membership of the Commission.3. In a public interest litigation initiated by Shri Kailash...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3199
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of Criminal Revisions Nos. 192, 1991, Union of India v. Hargovind; 193/1991, Union of India v. Radhey Shyam and 194 1991, Union of India v. Mohanlal, as the common central question involved in all the four petitions is whether in the absence of constitution and establishment of a Special Court under Section 36 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act'), the Sessions Court under Section 36D, which deals with transitional provisions until a Special Court is constituted Under Section 36, can take cognizance and try the offences under Sections 8/18 of the Act, committed after enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 without the case being committed to the Court of Session.2. The Act was amended by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 2 of 1989) (for short, the 'Amending Act'), which came into force from 29-5-1989...
Ku. Anita, Minor Vs. Atal Bihari and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ549
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a revision under Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, the 'Act') against the order dated 15-11-1991, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Criminal Appeal No. 58/ 1991, preferred against the order dated 18-9-1991 passed by the Juvenile Court, Morena under Section 32 of the Act holding the accused/ respondent No. 1 as a juvenile.2. The complainant/petitioner was sexually assaulted by the accused on 10-5-1991 at about 6 p.m. On a report a case under Section 376, IPC, at Crime No. 145/1991 was registered by P. S. Gohad against accused Atal Bihari, who apprehending his arrest applied for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected; therefore, the accused approached this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1090/1991, decided on 13-6-1991, wherein this Court after hearing the accused, the State and the complainant, directed the accused to surrender before the Juvenile Court, Morena, who then shall hold an inquiry in accorda...
Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ1
Faizanuddin, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been placed before this Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court (Gwalior Bench) comprising of Dr. T.N. Singh and S.K. Dubey, JJ.; on the controversy which surfaced on account of an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court (main-seat) rendered in State of M.P. v. Chandrahas, 1991 MPLJ 779 and a decision of the Apex Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, AIR 1987 SC 1613, on the question of disposal of successive bail applications, by the same Judge or Bench as the case may be which according to the referring Division Bench are conflicting to the decisions requiring determination of the point in controversy by a Larger Bench as the referring Bench did not agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Chandrahas (supra).2. The Division Bench making a reference has not precisely put the controversy in the form of a question to be resolved by this Full Bench, however, this controvers...
Pannalal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ189
ORDERT.N. Singh, J. 1. By this order, we propose to dispose of M.C.C. No. 31 of 1990 and the connected Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 1987 because we heard counsel in both matters treating the two matters analogous.2. The two matters arise out of First Appeal No. 54 of 1978, disposed of on 26-6-1984. That appeal was admitted on 25-7-1979 and was listed on several dates for hearing. Finally, on 26-6-1984, finding the appellant's counsel absent, the appeal was dismissed for default in appearance. That order was passed by U. N. Bhachawat, J. and K. M. Agrawal, J., constituting the Division Bench which had heard the appeal. Surprisingly, however, an application was filed before a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.C.C. No. 151 of 1987 and that was heard and disposed of on 10-10-1987. The application was made under Order 41, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the appeal and for hearing the same on merit. R. C. Shrivastava, J., who heard the matter, took the view that suf...
Bhal Chandra Upadhyaya Vs. Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation and an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1992
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ89
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. This is writ petition in a service matter.2. The petitioner is Assistant Branch Manager in Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation which is impleaded as respondent No. 1 in this petition. The petitioner started his service in the Corporation as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1974. In April, 1975 i.e. within about one year, he was promoted as Assistant Branch Manager. It will, thus, appear that for a long period of 17 years since then, he is stagnating in the post of Assistant Branch Manager. During this period he was suspended on certain charges on 20-11 -1982 and was ultimately dismissed from service on 11-11-1983. But the order of dismissal was quashed by this Court by order dated 28-1-1985 in M. P. No. 2670/83 (Annexure-A). While quashing that order, this Court also directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service and shall be entitled to pay and allowances as if the said order of dismissal had not been passed. Accordingly, the Corporati...
Shahzad Khan and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ61
ORDERT.N. Singh, J. 1. Heard counsel.Five persons have been charged to stand trial under Clause 3 of the M.P. Cement (Dealers Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. Trial has not begun because before evidence could be recorded on 20-12-1988 three of the accused petitioners rushed to this Court and trial Court's records are since lying tagged up with this revision. A conditional stay oder was also passed in this matter on 13-11-1988 and proceedings in the trial Court of Special Judge, Gwalior, are held up since then.3. In the offence report five persons are arrayed. Of them three are the instant petitioners and other two are -- Ramniwas and Surenda Kumar. The allegations in brief stated in offence report are that on 3-4-1986 at about 4.00 a.m. in the early morning on the Agra-Bombay road at the cross-road of Simaria-Tanka the S.D.O. detained Truck No. CPG 3152 and checked the vehicle. He found 200 bags of levy cement being...
Smt. Indira Gangele Vs. Shailendra Kumar Gangele
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP59; 1992(0)MPLJ864
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree of divorce passed by Shri Vinod Saxena, District Judge, Satna on 25-7-1991 in Civil Suit No. 36-A/1986 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The appellant challenges legality of the same and prays for setting aside the decree and dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent.2. There appears to be no dispute that the parties were married on 29-1-1984 in accordance with Hindu Law and thereafter lived at Raipur and Satna for some time. The respondent/husband in his application before the trial Court submitted that after their marriage on 29-1-1984, the parties lived at Satna for few days. Both of them thereafter went to Raipur together, where the appellant was left alone for some time with the respondent's parents. The parties again went on holiday to Puri. Thereafter, the appellant went back to her parents' home at Faizabad and di...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›