Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Manjur Ahmed and anr. Vs. Habib Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1994
Reported in: I(1997)ACC411
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This order shall also dispose of M.A. No. 175/93, Manjur Ahmed v. Habibkhan and Ors. M.A. No. 176/93 Manjur Ahmed and Ors. v.Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 177/93, Shamim Ahmed v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 178/93, Bilkish Khatun v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 183/93, Abdul Gaffar and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 184/93, Khekasha and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 185/93, Mariyambi and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 186/93, Mohd. Sayeed and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors., and M.A. No. 187/93, Iqbal Ahmed and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors.2. The brief history of the case is that the appellants here are the claimants. They have filed claim petition for award of compensation arising out of a motor accident. The same has been dismissed for non-appearance of claimants. Hence these appeals.2. The case was received no transfer by the A.M. A.C.T. Sendhwa on 24.8.1992. The order does not disclose as to whether the parties were informed for appearing before the A.M...
Pradeep Kumar Dhawan and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ112
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-1986 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, Indian Penal Code is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-1986 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.4. In the ...
Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2623
ORDERM.P. Singh, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.4. In the instant case the a...
Sant Ram @ Santu Samaru Gond Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ823
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. The applicant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 379 and 447, Indian Penal Code, for trespassing in the field and harvesting the paddy crop of the complainant, Radhabai and he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo S.I. for 20 days under Section 447, Indian Penal Code.2. On appeal the conviction was maintained but the sentence of imprisonment under Section 379, Indian Penal Code reduced to 4 months' R.I. by 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 106/90.3. Shri R. K. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that in Khasra Panchashala, the P. O. land is jointly recorded in the name of Radhabai and Jannabai. The applicant is the maternal nephew of Jannabai. He was managing the affairs of Jannabai as she had no other relative to look after her affairs. The applicant had harvested the paddy crop in exercise of b...
Trilok Chand Swarup Chand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ961
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. These references have been made by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The common question reference to the High Court is as follows :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was within his jurisdiction in initiating action by issuing a notice under Section 38(5)(a) of State Act read with appropriate section of Central Sales Tax Act and Turnover Tax Act specially in view of the fact that the material on the basis of which enhancement is to be made, was collected after the passing of the assessment order.'2. The assessee is a trading concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of oil seeds, cotton seeds, foodgrain, pulses, etc. and the references relate to assessment year 14-11-1974 to 3-11-1975. On 26-3-1971, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Khandwa passed three separate ...
Shobharam S/O Kodulal Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ33
D.P.S. Chouhan, J.1. The appellant Shobharam, having been convicted by Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Special Case No. 6/94 for committing offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereunder he has been sentenced to ten yeas' RI together with a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year's further R. I., has approached this Court by means of present appeal.2. The appellant is resident of village Menhada within the P.S. Tendukheda, Distt. Narsinghpur. It was on 30-1-1994 that an informant gave information to Rajesh Tiwari, Sub-Inspector of Police Tendukheda (P.W. 5) that in village Menhada, which falls within the said Police Station, that Shobharam, the present appellant, carries on the business in opium and is at present possessed of the opium which is kept by him in the inner pocket of his Baniyan. On receipt of such information, after making entr...
Gauri Shankar Gopilalji Patidar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ358
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Applicant Gaurishankar is hereby making a prayer for release on bail by this application. Applicant has been charged for commission of offence punishable under provision of Section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act). It is the contention of the applicant that the charge sheet has not been submitted against him in the Court by the investigating agency within period of 90 days from the date of his arrest. He is entitled to be released on bail in view of provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code').2. As this application is revolving around the sole point of the right of the applicant to get released on bail in view of provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code, it is not necessary to state prosecution allegation against him. It is admitted fact that applicant has been arrested by the police on the charge of commission of offence punishable u...
Gauri Shankar S/O Gopilalji Patidar Vs. Central Narcotics Bureau
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ584
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Applicant Gaurishankar is hereby making a prayer for release on bail by this application. Applicant has been charged for commission of offence punishable under provision of Section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act). It is the contention of the applicant that the charge sheet has not been submitted against him in the Court by the investigating agency within period of 90 days from the date of his arrest. He is entitled to be released on bail in view of provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code')2. As this application is revolving around the sole point of the right of the applicant to get released on bail in view of provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code, it is not necessary to state prosecution allegation against him. It is admitted fact that applicant has been arrested by the police on the charge of commission of offence punishable under ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tara and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ170
T.S. Doabia, J.1. Heard. The only challenge made by the petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the grant of interest on the interim compensation payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the payment of no fault compensation is only an interim measure and it does not finally adjudicate upon the rights of the litigants. It has further been argued that if ultimately a person claiming benefit of Section 140 of the Act referred to above is not found entitled to any compensation then the amount is refundable.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company has placed reliance on a decision given by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dhapa Kanwar v. Kisnanlal 1992 ACJ 163 (Rajasthan). The Rajasthan High Court observed as under:There being no provision in the Act, no interest is awardable. The Tribunal has power only that which was conferred on it. It was...
Somendra Pant Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC124
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 5 on 10.12.1980 at Indore and were blessed with a daughter named Kumari Shilpa on 28th June, 1985 at Indore. The petitioner shifted to USA for his further education and research in Troy, New York. The couple and Kumari Shilpa resided in Troy, New York for sometime. It appears that things did not remain rosy for couple and they got involved in litigation there. On 26.19.93 as contended. Family Court of the State of New York at Tory passed the order (Annexure P/9) thereby directing that physical custody of the child Kumari Shilpa Pant born on 28th June, 1985 be awarded to the petitioner. Despite this direction, custody of the child remains with respondent No. 1, who is admittedly residing at Pune alongwith the aforesaid child. In the face of entitlement flowing from the order and non-compliance of the same by respondent No. 5 the petitioner has filed this writ petition for obtaining writ of Habeas Corpus to obtain custody of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »