Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Karansingh and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3054
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Code for quashing the investigation started on a First Information Report on a charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Atrocities Act'), as also for grant of Ad Interim Anticipatory Bail.2. In the F.I.R. lodged by one Rama s/o Chhitar Bhil it is alleged that on 27-6-1991 the complainant along with Morsingh, Dhannalal, Nathu, Sama Bhil, resident of village Gularziri went for fishing in a tank in the village Nai Baroda at about 8.00 p.m. While they were fishing at about 11.00 O'Clock in, the night, Karasingh, Vijay, Munnalal, Babloo and another Karansingh Deshwali came on the spot and abused them, challenged them to come out, asking them their identity. They also threatened the complainant party not to try the escape else they would kill them. To threaten the complainant party, the accused party also fired in the...
Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industria ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ335MP
ORDERM.V. Tamaskar, J.1. On January 4,1980 at about 4.30 P.M. there was a scuffle between Shri P.R. Sakhare, Overman, and Shri Retulal, loader of Satpura-2 mine. It was alleged that Shri Sakhare assaulted Shri Retulal and later on Shri Retulal along with other co-workers assaulted Shri Sakhare. Subsequently, there was a wild-cat strike from second shift on January 4, 1980 demanding immediate action against Shri Sakhare. The strike continued upto the first shift of January 5, 1980. Meanwhile, discussions took place between the Unions on the one side and the Agent, Satpura-2 mine on the other side. An understanding was reached resulting into appointment of Shri B.L. Nandwana as Enquiry Officer. The matter was inquired and report was submitted to the Agent, Satpura-2. The unit management initiated disciplinary action issuing charge-sheets to nine persons including Shri Sakhare, Overman, and placing them under suspension. This resulted in illegal strike from Janaury 29,1980 in Satpura-2 mi...
Laxmi Bai and anr. Vs. Naga Ram Khilawandas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ442
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. A common order is being passed in this second Appeal No. 402 of 1988 (Ram Sahay v. Rambahoran) and Second Appeal No. 441 of 1988 (Maharani and Ors. v. Phoolrani), as a common reference has been made by the learned Single Judge, Hon. S. K. Seth, J., to resolve the conflict which has arisen due to his own dissenting opinion and the one expressed in Mehernosh Merfitie v. Paras Kumar Gangwal, C. Re. No. 63 of 80 decided on 18-6-1986, on one side and the opinion of Hon. Dr. T. N. Singh, J., at Gwalior Bench of this Court in a decision reported in Anwar v. Wahidan, AIR 1987 MP 140, on the other.2. In regular appeals under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the appellants in the lower appellate Court, applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time in filing the appeals were filed. The first appellate Court rejected the applications for extensionof time and consequently dismissed the appeals as barred by time. Against the or...
H and R Johanson (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(42)LC452(MP)
1. Dr. Dhananjay Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri B.G. Neema, learned Counsel for the Union of India, on being supplied an advance copy, heard on the question of admission.2. This is a petition for quashing an order passed by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Indore. Admittedly, the order is appealable under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 before the Customs Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. Dr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice itself was without jurisdiction as it was patently issued beyond limitation prescribed by Section 11A of the Act. According to him no particulars of any suppression of facts or any other fraud have been set out in the show cause notice and, therefore, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 1988 (35) E.L.T. : 1989 (17) ECR 401 (SC) : ECR C 1702 SC this Court should interfere. Dr. Chandrachud also placed reliance on...
Lachoo Ram Vs. BipIn Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP17
S.K. Dubey, J.1.This second appeal by the defendant/tenant is against the judgment and decree of eviction, passed under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), which was admitted by this Court for hearing on 4-4-1983 on the following substantial question of law:--'Whether the suit was not maintainable for a ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, even when the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 12(3) of the Act, because the suit was instituted before expiry of two months of the notice of demand regarding the arrears of rent, as averred in paragraph 4 of the plaint ?'2. It is not disputed that the respondent/landlord instituted an earlier Suit No. 113-A/73for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha, wherein the appellant/ tenant having deposited the arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of writ of summons, the order of eviction w...
Cutlary House and anr. Vs. KamruddIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP13
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Heard Shri S. L.Pamecha, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission.2. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by VIIth Addl. District Judge, Indore dismissing a revision application filed before him by the petitioner against refusal of the executing court to stay the proceeding of execution pending disposal of an application under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. filed by the Judgment-Debtor/petitioner.3. The petitioners were tenants in a house No. 147, Ranipura Main Road, Indore. A decree for ejectment was passed against them in favour of respondents. This decree was maintained till the Supreme Court. In the execution of that decree on 14-10-1991 an application under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code was moved. On 20-1-1991 the application was rejected. A civil revision was filed against that order and the revisional court allowing the revision directed that an inquiry should be held in the all...
Bankat Lal Vs. Mathuralal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ151
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year, in respect of the land situated at Survey Nos. 278 and 279 (new survey No. 216), area 16 'Bigha' 12 'Biswa', in village Amkheda, Tahsil Chachoda, District Guna.2. The appeal was admitted on 12-7-1991 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : --'1. Whether the plaintiff had acquired the rights of a Bhumiswami? 2. Whether the order directing the prosecution of the plaintiff is in accordance with law? 3. Whether the defendants had a right to take over possession of the land in dispute after the abolition of Zamindari? 4. Had the defendants become 'Pakka' tenant as claimed?'3. The facts in brief are thus:According to the plaintiff the land in dispute was given to him on Patta' (ExtP/1) dated 2-8-1943 by Kishorilal, the ex-Zamindar; the...
Sunil Singh Vs. Shakunbai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC149
M.W. Deo, J.1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 3-5-1990 passed by the lower Court granting ad-interim maintenance pending final decision of the petition for divorce. The lower Court has granted interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for maintenance of the wife and Rs. 500/- for expenses of litigation.2. This Court while granting stay order dated 8-12-90 put a condition of Rs. 150/- per month for maintenance to the wife. It if to be seen that after this order while proceedings were going on in the trial Court an order was recorded by the trial Court on 13-8-1991 stating that the wife should be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 751- per month as an ad-hoc arrangement till further orders. It is to be seen that the husband or wife has not felt aggrieved by this order dated 13-8-1991 as none of them came in revision against this order and are continuing with the contest in the trial Court.3. Against th...
Rajesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ320MP; 1993(0)MPLJ133
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.M. No. 82 of 1991 (Satyendra Singh and 31 others v. State ofMad-hya Pradesh through Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.P., Bhopal and Ors.), as both the petitions were heard analogously. 2. All the pctilioncrs by this petition have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ, direction or order for quashmcnt of the notice and orders of termination of their services passed on December 1/5, 1990 (Annexurcs P/1-A to P/1-Q) by the Manager, Land Development Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vidisha, the respondent No. 5, while the petitioners in M.M. No. 82 of 1991 have challenged the resolution dated November 14, 1990 (Annexurc P/1) of the Board and the noticeand order of termination dated November 19, 1990 (Annexure P/3), passed and issued by the respondent No. 5. 3. The petitioners contend in their petition that they were appointed on their respective posts and then were regularised, but becau...
Rajeshkumar and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ249MP; 1993MPLJ133
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.M.No 82 of 1991 (Satyendra Singh and 31 Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.P., Bhopal and Ors.), as both the petitioners were heard analogously.2. All the petitioners by this petition have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ, direction: or order for quashment of the notice and orders of termination of their services passed on December 1/15, 1990 (Anenxure P/1-A to P/1-Q) by the Manager, Land Development Cooperative Bank Ltd., Vidisha, the respondent No. 5, while the petitioners in M.M. No. 82 of 1991 have challenged the resolution dated November 14, 1990 (Annexure P/1) of the Board and the notice and order of termination dated November 19, 1990 (Annexure P/3), passed and issued by the respondent No. 5.3. The petitioners contend in their petition that they were appointed on their respective posts and then were regularised, but because ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »