Madhya Pradesh Court March 1995 Judgments
Ravindra Kumar Ramshankar Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ645
ORDERI.P. Rao, J.1. This revision is preferred against the framing of charge by the Special Judge, Raipur under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by order dated 19-12-1994.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant who is working as Executive Engineer in M. P. Pollution Control Board is in the habit of harassing Sanjay Kumar Mehra who is working as Assistant Engineer. Baring on the complaint sent by the said Mchra to the Hon'ble Minister, Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal which was sent to the Collector, Raipur for necessary action, the police have investigated into the case. The statements of the complainant, Dharampal and Ashok Phutane recorded on 25-10-1994 are to the effect that on 24-2-1994 at about 5 p.m. the complainant was insulted by the applicant. The statement given by the complainant docs not elaborate what are the actual words of abuse used by the applicant. But the statement of Dharampal given to the pol...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Prasad and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ1026
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. The challenge in this petition is being made to acquisition proceedings initiated by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This notification is dated 17th of February 1989. This was published in the M.P. Rajpatra of 22nd, of February 1989. Urgency provisions were invoked. The notification recites that the provisions of Section 5A are being dispensed with. Notification under Section 6 of the Act, was issued on 4th of August, 1989. The present petition was filed in October 1989. Interim order was passed directing the respondent Mandi to not to raise any construction on the land which was subject matter of acquisition.2. The further factual recital in the writ petition is to the effect that the land is situated in a developing town having a population of more than 50,000. It is pleaded that merely mentioning the names of the village was not enough to identify the land in question. It has also b...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3060
ORDERI.P. Rao, J.1. This revision is preferred against the framing of charge by the Special Judge Raipur under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by order dated 19-12-1994.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant who is working as Executive Engineer in M.P. Pollution Control Board is in the habit of harassing Sanjay Kumar Mehra who is working as Assistant Engineer. Hearing on the complaint sent by the said Mehra to the Hon'ble Minister, Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal which was sent to the Collector Raipur for necessary action, the police have investigated into the case. The statements of the complainant, Dharampal and Ashok Phutane recorded on 25-10-1994 are to the effect that on 24-2-1994 at about 5 p.m. the complainant was insulted by the applicant. The statement given by the complainant does not elaborate what are the actual words of abuse used by the applicant. But the statement of Dharampal given to the police i...
Tag this Judgment!Parasnath Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(MP)201
T. S. DOABIA, J. :This order shall dispose of sixteen writ petitions, preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.2. These petitions have arisen under the following circumstances :The IT authorities issued warrant of authorisation under ss. 132 and 132A of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Cash and ornaments were required to be delivered to the officer issuing the warrant. These warrants were issued on the happening of different events in different petitions. Twelve petitions arise out of one happening. Two petitions pertain to another event, whereas other two petitions deal with different, separate and distinct facts.Facts in twelve petitions are as under :On 9th June, 1990, one Nirbay Kumar was found at the railway station Gwalior. He was travelling by the Kerala Express. This train left the town of Salem and was on its way to Delhi. The Station Incharge of the Government Railway Police (Broad Gauge), Gwalior, found that the aforementioned Nirbay Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Praking Vs. State Bank of Indore and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP28; 1995(0)MPLJ867
ORDERJ.C. Chitre, J.1. This revision petition is heard finally on request of both the counsel appearing for contesting litigants.2. Shri A.K. Sethi, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the loan granted to petitioner was at Indore, the documents in respect of said loand were also executed at Indore and the petitioner resides at Indore. The loan was obtained from branch of Opponent No. 1 situated at Indore. Therefore, only the Indore Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain suit in view of provisions of Section 20 of C.P.C.3. Shri Sethi, also pointed out that the prayer clause of the plaint deals with prayer for refund of money and it also indicated that money should be refunded along with the interest and, therefore, though the property which has been mortgaged is situated within the jurisdiction of Ratlam Court, Ratlam Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.4. He made a grievance that learned trial Court did not consider this important facet of th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Narayan Vs. Rajaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP12
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. Initially the suit was filed for injunction. Later on an application seeking amendment was made under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the litigation, some constructions have been raised. By way of amendment, mandatory injunction was sought. This prayer was denied. Against this order, the present revision has been filed.2. It may be seen that if something has happened during the pendency of the litigation that can certainty be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. Such a course was approved by the High Court of Punjab in Puran Chand Sant Lal v. Nitya Nand, AIR 1958 Punj 460. Mr. Justice A. N. Grover (later, Judge of the Supreme Court) observed as under:--'In a suit for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant for making constructions on a joint site, a decree for a mandatory injunction cannot be granted without amendment of the plaint. Such amendment can ...
Tag this Judgment!The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP116
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. In some of these writ petitions, provisions of Entry Tax Act, 1976 (for short the Act) are challenged as unconstitutional. In all the writ petitions, except M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, the notification dated 29-6-1990 of the State Government issued under Section 4-A (2) of the Act specifying local areas in goods for imposition of entry tax at the rate of 10% for limestone and levy and collection of such entry tax are challenged. In M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, levy of entry tax at similar rate on entry of limestone within a local area are challenged. In M. P. No. 1521 of 1991, similar levy of entry-tax into a local area is challenged- In some of the writ petitions, subsequent notification dated 2-2-1994 is challenged. 2. We have heard various counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged the following points for consideration : (i) The impugned notifications relate to lime (stone) and not l...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam S/O Nandlalji Patidar Vs. Jagdish S/O Gangaram Patidar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: AIR1995MP272; 1995(0)MPLJ909
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby assailing the order dated 28-2-1995 which has been passed against him by 1st Additional District Judge, Ratlam in the matter of Election Petition No. 7 of 1995 whereby the learned Additional District Judge allowed the said petition filed by Jagdish s/ o Gangaram who happens to be opponent No. 1 in the present petitions.2. Few facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy between the contesting litigants. Election were held for Sailana Municipal Council in the year 1994 and thereafter the President of Sailana Municipal Council was to be elected. Jagdish s/o Gangaram, as record shows also submitted his nomination paper for the purpose of plaing his claim for getting elected as President of Municipal Council. The record shows that his nomination paper was rejected by the concerned authority and, therefore, being aggrieved by the rejection, he submitted the said election petition. The learned 1st Additional District Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Devram Bilve Vs. Smt. Indumati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC267
D. Verma, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the husband, who was non-applicant in the Trial Court, against his wife, who was applicant in the Trial Court against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in F.A. No. 113/92 (Smt. Indumati Bilve v. Dewaram Bilve), arising out of the judgment and decree dated 1.5.1992 passed by the Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, in Special Marriage Case No. 411/91, whereby the applicant's (respondent herein) application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') was rejected and the non-applicant's (appellant here in) counter claim for divorce under Section 27(1)(d) read with Section 35 of the Act, was allowed.2. The facts of the case, in brief, compass are mentioned herein below. Parties to the litigation were married on 2.11.1982 before the Marriage Officer i.e. the Additional Collector, Khargone. They...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mangu @ Mangilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ567
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. State has filed .the revision against certain directions issued by the Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial Case No. 166 of 1991.2. Learned Sessions Judge tried four accused on charges under Sections 302, 302 read with Sections 34, 307 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted first accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life on him and convicted third accused under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment of three months on him. Other accused were acquitted of all charges. Third accused was acquitted of other charges. Learned Sessions Judge further directed -(i) that first accused shall pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the 18 year old widow of the victim Kalyan and since recovery may be delayed or may not be possible for the present, the State shall pay this amount to her and recover it from the properties of the first accused;(ii) The State shall also...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »