Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Shankarlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ753
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order dated 8-6-1990 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, passed in Cr. Revision No. 13 of 1987, preferred against the order dated 22-10-1986 passed in Case No. 62/84 x 145, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shivpuri.2. The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 2. Initially, he was occupying three rooms on second floor on monthly rent of Rs. 110/- and was residing therein with members of the family. The landlady, on the pretext of the marriage of her son, asked the petitioner- to shift temporarily in two rooms with a kitchen and a bath room on the second floor on the assurance that after the marriage of her son, possession of the tenanted accommodation which was initially let to him will be given to him. But, for one reason or the other, the marriage could not be solemnized in the year 1983 which ultimately was fixed on 27-2-1984. The landlady again approached the petitioner with a demand that out of two rooms, for ...
Shankarlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ70
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is a petition to revise the order dated 8-6-1990 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, passed in Cr. Revision No. 13 of 1987, preferred against the order dated 22-10-1986 passed in Case No. 62/84-145, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shivpuri.2. The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 2. Initially, he was occupying three rooms on second floor on monthly rent of Rs. 110/- and was residing therein with members of the family. The landlady, on the pretext of the marriage of her son, asked the petitioner to shift temporarily in two rooms with a kitchan and a bath room on the second floor on the assurance that after the marriage of her son, possession of the tenanted accommodation which was initially let to him will be given to him. But, for one reason or the other, the marriage could not be solemnized in the year 1983 which ultimately was fixed on 27-2-84. The landlady again approached the petitioner with a demand that out of two rooms, for the ...
Radhacharan Vs. Omprakash Mishra and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ67
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. Petitioner against whom the respondent No. 1, the complainant (since deceased), filed, a complaint under Sections 167, 409, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C., has come up in revision against the order dated 16-1-1990, passed in Criminal Revision No. 118 of 1988 by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, whereby the order dated 2-4-1988 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, of dismissal of the complaint, passed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Code'), was set aside and the case was remitted to the Inquiring Magistrate for reconsideration and to pass orders in accordance with law, on the material of the inquiry made under Section 202 of the Code.2. The complainant, as a citizen, filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner on 28-1-1986 making allegations therein that the petitioner, who is in the service of Government of Madhya Predesh and working as Deputy Director, Agriculture, has falsely withdrawn T.A., D.A. and ...
Ramkishan Vs. Samrat Ashok Technical Institute
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ944MP; 1995(0)MPLJ53
ORDERShacheendra Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner in this petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks a direction for the quashing of the order contained in Annex P-7, of his removal from the post of the L.D.C. by respondent, the employer, after he had served the respondent for about 5 years.2. The fact may be shortly described: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Time Keeper on ad hoc basis by the respondent vide order Annexure P-1 dated June 21, 1985. The petitioner under different orders passed from time to time, was allowed to work in different capacities such as Telephone Operator of PBX and was also posted for some time in Library Section, as clerk.3. On April 4, 1988, the petitioner was posted as L.D.C. on a salary of Rs. 785/- per month vide Annexure P-3. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time under different orders. But, the petitioner's service was ordered to be terminated by order dated July 5, 1990 Annexure P-7. The pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›