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.
Smt. Bimlabai W/O Khushalsingh and ors. Vs. Shri Shantilal S/O Dhannaj ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP44
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J. 1. Heard Shri S. C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri R. C. Kochatta, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. In this revision application non-framing of additional issues by the trial court has been challenged. Shri Agrawal submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Shri Kochatta submits that the application has been moved mala fide to any how delay the proceedings. 3. On perusal of the record, it is clear that no way of additional pleadings the tenability of the suit against the legal representatives of the deceased Khushalsingh was challenged on several grounds. The trial Court framed an issue as to the tenability in general terms but did not frame specific issues on every ground of challenge. However, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the applicants as general issues to the tenability of the suit against the L.R.'s of the deceased Khushalsingh has been framed, and the ground on whi...
Agrawal Transport Corporation Vs. Girjabai Wd/O Baldeo Prasad Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ623
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the ex parte order of eviction dated 7-3-1991 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in eviction case No. A90(7)56/90.2. The facts leading to this revision petition, in short are that the petitioner was the tenant of the respondent in a shop comprising of two rooms in the building situated at 10(old) and 12(new) Nasia Road, Indore. The tenancy was for non-residential purpose. The respondents filed an application on 3-12-1990 before the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore against the petitioner under Section 23A(b) of the Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as a widow. On the same date an order for issuance of notice of the eviction application was passed by the Rent Controlling Authority directing the tenant to appear before the Court on 27-12-1990. On 27-12-1990 the Court found that the bailiff had given a report of non-service of notice on the grou...
K.K. Krishnan Vs. Industrial Court
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ385MP; 1992(0)MPLJ570
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the M.P.S.R.T.C). He was appointed w.e.f. August 13, 1969 as a Book Checker. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on June 7, 1976, He was further promoted to the post of Bills Assistant 'on February 24, 1977. The next promotional post is that of the Head Clerk. The petitioner was ordered to work as Head Clerk by an order dated June 20, 1987. According to the petitioner he was working against the vacant post. He worked on the post up to January 20, 1988. However, when the learnt of the intention of the employer to revert him back to the post of Bills Assistant, he filed an application under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act'). The petitioner contended that he had become permanent Head Clerk after having completed 6 months' satisfactory service as Head Clerk. The claim is based on the provisions contained in...
Soorajmal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3206
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an application for quashing the proceedings in which charge Under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been framed against the applicant.2. The prosecution alleges that on information being received that opium is going to be brought on the field of the applicant, a raid was arranged and on the spot, Baboo, a servant of the applicant was caught while running away and 10.5 k.g. of opium was recovered from the field.3. The applicant submits that the charge is groundless and has been framed against him only because he is the owner of the field, without there being any evidence about his knowingly possessing opium.4. The law on the point is settled. In State of Bihar v. Murad Alikhan AIR 1989 SC 1 : (1989 Cri LJ 1005) it has been observed that inherent powers are to be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure ends of justice. These powers have to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In exercising inherent jurisdic...
Chirag Ingots Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(43)LC665(MP)
ORDER1. Notices issued to the respondents have not been received back served or unserved, but Shri E.G. Neema, learned standing counsel for the Union of India appears and takes notices. He has been given copy of the petition just now and apprised of the order dated 7.5.1992.2. By the order dated 7.5.1992, the appellate authority was granted time till the reopening of the Courts after vacation for deciding the appeal. It appears that has not been done.3. After hearing the parties, we consider it to be fit and proper to direct that the appeal pending before the Collector Appeals, Central Excise, Indore against order Annexure 'P-6' dated 8.4.1992 shall be disposed of within two months from today. In case the appeal is not decided within that time, the recovery under the impugned order dated 9.4.1992 shall remain stayed till the appeal is finally disposed of by the appellate authority.4. The stay order granted by this Court on 7.5.1992 shall continue till the disposal of the appeal by the ...
Kalyan Singh Vs. D.P. Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ83
ORDERShacheendra Dwivedi, J. 1. This petition raises an important question as to the implication and application of Sections 427 and 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.2. The petitioner, a surrendered dacoit and a convict, presently undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life, surrendered to custody before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena on 27-10-1984 and the first conviction of 3 years' R.I. came on him on 15-12-1986 in Special Case No. 176/84 passed by Special Court, Sabalgarh.3. The petitioner in that case was allowed the benefit of 'set-off' under Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code for the period of preconviction detention commencing from the date 27-10-1984 of his surrender to custody to the date of his first conviction i.e., 15-12-1986. In that case, giving him the further benefit of remission, in the sentence of 3 years R.I., the petitioner was released on 8-9-1987, but was detained in the other pending cases under production warrants.4. The second conviction of 7 yea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›