Madhya Pradesh Court April 1994 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.
Sheetal Prasad Gaur and ors. Vs. Bhagwandas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC300
R.P. Awasthy, J.1. It is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings instituted on the basis of complaint lodged by the non-applicant.2. Contention of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 3 was married to the non-applicant on 20.5.83 at Nagpur, according to Hindu rites. She resided with her husband at Durg till Feb., 1990. No issue was born out of the said wedlock.3. The petitioner No. 3 was brought to Nagpur for her medical check up. She was medically examined by a Doctor Jaya Keswani and nothing wrong was found pertaining to her. After two years of the said examination the petitioner was also medically examined at Nagpur. Abnormality in his spermatoza was found and it was further found that there was testicular atrophy. The non-applicant did not receive the medical treatment prescribed for the said abnormality. The petitioner No. 3 filed a petition for granting a decree of divorce and a decree for dissolution of marriage was passed on 29.4.91. The petiti...
Ram Naresh Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2523
ORDERShankar, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 4-10-1993, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, whereby he granted bail to the non-applicants No. 1 to 5.2. Facts leading to the present petition are : that an offence under Section 307/34, I.P.C. was registered at Crime No. 71/93 at P.S. Mou. It was alleged that the accused persons caused injuries to complainant's brothers Satyendra and Arvind by fire-arm. The non-applicants moved an application for bail, which was rejected but the second application was allowed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been preferred.3. Learned counsel for the non-applicants contended that the revision petition is not maintainable, as the order of bail granted in their favour is an interlocutory order. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that if it is held that the revision petition does not lie, the application may be treated as a petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Proced...
Sagar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madh. PrA.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1860
R.D. Shukla, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-1 -1988 of Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandsaur passed in S. T. No. 72/82 whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 436 r/w 149, 323 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C., and sentenced to RI for 6 months, 4 years and 3 months each with a direction of running of sentences concurrently.2. The brief history of the case is that there was a long dispute between Balu Singh on the one hand and Sagar Singh on the other. It appears the police was apprehensive of breach of peace. As such, some police officers were deputed in village Mundedi. It is alleged that on 8-10-81 at about 10 p.m. of the accused-appellants including three other persons i.e. Ranvir Singh, Dashrath Singh and Kalu Singh had assembled in front of the house of Balu Singh. They abused him. Balu Singh's son Bhanwar Singh and his daughter Shivkumari were in the house. Balu Singh came from Mundedi Bazar. Accused Sagar Singh exhorted hi...
Sitaram Vs. Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1995MP134; 1995(0)MPLJ818
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is defendant's second appeal who has lost in both the Courts below. The suit instituted by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1, is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possesion of the agricultural suit land consisted in Survey Nos. 46/2 and 47/1, admeasuring 2 Bighas and 4 Biswas and 1 Bigha and 18 Biswas respectively, situated at village Mahiba, Tahsil Ater, District Bhind. The defendant also claimed mesne profits for the damage caused to his crops. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were co-owners (Bhumiswamis) of the land situated in Survey Nos. 46 and 47 along with other land. The Tahsildar, under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, for short, the 'Code', in Case No. 17/71 -72-27, vide order dated 3-9-1973 (Ex. P/1), ordered partition of the land between the co-owners. Suit land comprised in Survey Nos. 46/2 and 47/1, fell in the share of the plaintiff, while the land comprised i...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Kanta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC459
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, aggrieved by order dated 13-11-1977, passed by the 4th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in Guardian Case No. 71 of 85, whereby the lower Court has dismissed the petition filed under Sections 7, 17 and 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.2. It is a common ground that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 14-4-76 and from appellant respondent gave birth to a child named 'Gaurav' on 17-3-77 at Indore. Before the birth of the child, the respondent Smt. Kantabai was residing at Indore. The appellant had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent, seeking restitution of conjugal rights; but it was dismissed. It is also not disputed that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. at Indore, which was also dismissed on...
Brihaspati Bai Wd/O Chintaram Swarnkar Vs. Mohanlal Chintaram Swarnkar ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ878
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of analogous case M.A. No. 213/94.2. The facts relevant for the consideration of the question involved in this case are in brief, on 19-2-1980 the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration of the title and permanent injunction against the respondents regarding suit house and the open land appertinent thereto, situated at Sadar Bazar, Ram Mandir, Durg. The plaintiff-appellant claimed exclusive title to the suit property on the basis of will executed by her husband Chintaram on 19-1-1979 (Ex. P19) whereas the case of the defendants-respondents 1 to 5 is based on a will executed by Chintaram in their favour of the suit property on 4-12-1979 (Ex. D1). The suit was valued at Rs. 300/- for the purposes of declaration and injunction and fixed Court fee of Rs. 30/- for declaration and Rs. 30/- for permanent injunction was fixed. The civil suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Durg.3. First, second and third r...
Chetram Gendlal Gouli Vs. RamdIn Kunji Gouli and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ532
ORDERR.P. Awasthy, J.1. It is a petition filed under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code for transferring the Sessions Trials Nos. 27/93, 28/93 and 29/93 (arising out of one and the same incident) from the Court of the learned A.J. to S.J., Betul, posted at Multai.2. The grounds on which the transfer of the said trials has been sought arc as follows :-(i) The Presiding Officer of the Court concerned is taking very keen and special interest in the said sessions trials and is giving very short adjournments for examination of prosecution witnesses, which is said to be unusual.(ii) The close relation of the accused viz. Bharat has proclaimed that he has won over all (concerned) and therefore, nothing is going to happen in the case against the accused/non-applicants.(iii) The petitioner has engaged a private counsel (private counsel for short) but the learned prosecutor has not co-operated with him. The learned counsel privately engaged by the petitioner raised legal and substantial object...
Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ458
ORDERR.P. Awasthy, J.1. It is a petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 9-9-1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 134/93, by Shri R. B. Singh, Third Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sagar, by virtue of which order charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against the accused who are petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 597/93, Criminal Revision No. 612/93 and Criminal Revision No. 4186/93. As all of the three cases relate to one and single order passed by the learned AJ to SJ Sagar and in all of the said three cases, similar questions of law and facts are involved, all of the said three cases are being disposed of by this single order.2. The facts of the case are as follows :According to the prosecution Vedprakash Bhaiji (Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 612/93), Prakash Chand and Vinod Kumar (Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 597/93) and Mahesh Vaid...
Vedprakash Bhaiji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ893
R.P. Awasthy, J. 1. It is a petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 9-9-93 passed in Sessions Trial No, 134/93, by Shri R. B. Singh, Third Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sagar, by virtue of which order charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC have been framed against the accused who are petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 597/93, Criminal Revision No. 612/93 and Criminal Revision No. 4186/93. As all of the three cases relate to one and single order passed by the learned AJ to SJ Sagar and in all of the said three cases, similar questions of law and facts are involved, all of the said three cases are being disposed of by this single order.2. The facts of the case are as follows:--According to the prosecution Vedprakash Bhaiji (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 612/ 93), Prakash Chand and Vinod Kumar (petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 597/93) and Mahesh Vaidhya (Petitioner in Misc. Cr. Cas...
Hotel Ashoka and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: [1997]226ITR388(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 is one of its partners. The firm is the assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). It submitted the return which was assessed by the Income-tax Officer. Respondent No. 2, however, issued a notice dated September 2, 1993 (annexure 'B') to petitioner No. 1 under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1986-87 saying that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessed period had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and demanding delivery of the return in the prescribed form within 30 days from the date of service of this notice. The petitioners replied on November 8, 1993 (annexure 'C'), indicating that the return already filed be treated as return in response to this notice. On November 10, 1993, the petitioners demanded, vide annexure 'D', that the reasons recorded for proceedings under Section 148 of the Act be communic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »