Madhya Pradesh Court January 1995 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.
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: 1997CriLJ27
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. These revision petitions have been referred to a Division Bench by I. P. Rao, J., doubting the correctness of the view taken by N. P. Singh, J., in Cr. Rev. No. 146 of 1990. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Advocate representing the State.2. These revision petitions arise out of separate prosecutions under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short' the Act') in Sagar and Jabalpur districts respectively. The trial Courts in the two cases convicted and sentenced the accused and the convictions and sentences were upheld by the appellate Court. The accused thereupon filed the revision petitions.3. Section 16A incorporated in the Act by Amendment Act No. 34 of 1976 with effect from 1st April 1976 requires that all offences under Section 16(1) shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a M...
Shyam Lal Vs. Shiv Dayal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1995MP177; 1995(0)MPLJ340
ORDERShacheendra Dwivedi, J. 1. This petition, is preferredunder Article 227 of the Constitution of Indiafor a writ/direction for quashing the order ascontained in Annexure P/I, passed by thelearned Additional District Judge, Pichchbre,district, Shivpuri.2. The facts may be summarized. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the court-below. The suit was filed against the respondent and one Phulla for declaration and permanent injunction with the prayer that the petitioner-plaintiff be declared as Bhumiswami and the person in possession of the disputed agricul-tural land. It was also prayed that the registered sale-deed dated 31-3-1981 executed by defendant No. 2 Phulla in favour of the respondent be declared ineffective as against the petitioner, having been executed by a person without any right. A decree of permanent injunction was also prayed.3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 2 died. An application was moved by the petitioner-plaintiff on 9-11-1994 under Order 22 Rule 4...
Mathura Bai and ors. Vs. Daryanamal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1995MP202; 1995(0)MPLJ427
ORDERSacheendra Dwivedi, J. 1. This petition is preferred by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court respectively.2. The facts may be summarised. Plaintiff-Petitioner Mathura Bai had preferred a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, but later, she sought the withdrawal of the suit and filed an application to that effect submitting that she had bequeathed the property to petitioner No. 2, and therefore, did not desire to proceed with the suit any more.3. The respondent had opposed the application. The learned trial Court granted the application and the revision preferred by the respondent was also dismissed. A Misc. Petition was preferred in this Court by the respondent/defendant, and at the motion hearing stage, without any notice to the petitioner, on the contentions of the defenat/ respondent that he too had preferred an application in the...
Jagannath Singh Vs. Salim Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC362
Sachin Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner's father was run over by a vehicle on A-B Road. The petitioner is the son of deceased Bhagwanlal. A report of the accident was lodged by one Narender Singh, the nephew of deceased Bhagwanlal on 20.7.1992 and the Police investigated the accident.2. The petitioner preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here in after called the 'Act'), and also filed an application under Section 140 of the Act for the payment of the interim compensation. Alongwith the application, under Section 140 of the Act, the petitioner is stated to have filed the copy of F.I.R., the spot map, the post-mortem report and the japti panchnama of tanker No. M.P. 08/3736, which is stated to be involved in the accident. A copy of the application filed by respondent No. 2 in the Court of J.M.F.C. for the Superego of the seized truck also filed. The copies of the abovestated documents have also been filed with this petition.3. The Claims Tribunal whil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›