Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
State of M.P. Vs. Mangu Alias Mangilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)5; 1995CriLJ3852
ORDERV.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 IPC and convicted first accused under Section 302, IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life on him and convicted third accused under Section 323, IPC 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 ensure free education to the children of d...
Rahul Gupta Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3340
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior dismissing the revision petitioner's application for release on bail under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code).2. The petitioner and others are accused in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and other offences under the Indian Penal Code arising out of the incident which took place on 8-2-1993. The petitioner was arrested on 11 -8-1993 and duly produced before the Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody for 15 days. The charge-sheet was filed on 20-10-1993.3. On 13-12-1993, the petitioner filed an application seeking bail under Section 167(2) of the Code on the ground that on 25-8-1993, 8-9-1993, 22-9-1993 and 6-10-1993, he had not been produced before the Magistrate and no valid order of remand had been passed, the copies of challan papers were supplied to him only on 14-12-1993 beyond...
Dr. Omprakash Soni Vs. Ashok Kumar Bhargava and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP43
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. The brief facts for the purposes of this writ petition be noticed.2. The present petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Miana, Tehsil and District of Guna. His election was challenged by the respondent No. 1. The present petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 5 pleading that the election-petition deserves to be dismissed summarily as this has not been presented in terms of Rule 3(2) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the election-petition is to be filed under the aforementioned rules.3. The election Court has given its decision. The copy of the same is placed on record as Annexure P-1. It has come to the conclusion that copies of the election petition were not attested by the election petitioners. On facts at least, the learned counsel for the parties are agreed th...
Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ73
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Common question of law arises for decision in these two revision petitions. Hence they arc heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The only question arising for consideration in these revisions is whether the Municipal Corporation originally and the District Court in appeal committed an error of law or of jurisdiction in holding that property tax is leviable on the revision petitioners (Central Warehousing Corporation) under the provisions of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The Municipal Corporation as well as the District Court took the view that the exemption under Section 136(a)(i) of the Act will not apply to the building and lands in question. The correctness of this view is now challenged.3. The only contention urged by learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the buildings and lands appurtenant to the revision petitioners (Central Warehousing Corporation) is covered by th...
Vindhyachal Vrihat Tap Vidyut Karmachari Sangh (intuc) and anr. Vs. Ge ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ627MP
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this petition has prayed that by appropriate writ or direction the certification made by Certifying Officer by its order (Annexure P/1 and P/1-A) may be quashed. It is further prayed that the order dated September 20, 1993 (Annexure P/2) may be set aside, and the Certifying Officer may be directed to certify the Standing Orders in accordance with the Model Standing Orders and the Clause 33 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Industrial Orders Act (Annexure P/l) may be declared as ultra vires.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered Union having registration No. 3466 and is affiliated to INTUC. The petitioner No. 2 is also a registered Union having its registration No. 3771 and is also affiliated to B.M.S. The Respondent No. 1 is General Manager, having full control over the affairs of Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Project (VSTPP) which is a Unit of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC). TheRespondent No. 2 is Certifying Officer in ...
Manju Ajay Ahuja Vs. Ajay R. Ahuja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ1021
D.P.S. Chouhan, J.1. A petition for annulment of the marriage of Smt. Manju Ahuja, the wife, was filed by Shri Ajay Ahuja, the husband, under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial court granted the relief for annulment of the marriage and decreed the suit under Section 13(1-A) of the Act.2. In the same suit an application under Section 27 of the Act was moved by the wife for return of the dowry. The respondent-husband admitted having received one pair of bed, one and half Tolas of gold and one TV, which were directed to be returned and the parties were directed to bear their own costs vide judgment and decree dated 21-12-1993 passed in Civil Suit No. 148-A/91. The present appeal is outcome of the aforesaid judgment and decree.3. The facts of the case are typical in nature. It is admitted that marriage between the parties took place according to the Hindu rites on 6-2-1985 in Jabalpur. They lived together and Smt...
Lachhmandas Genumal and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ925
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in these cases. Hence, common arguments are heard and the cases are being disposed of by common order.2. Petitioner in M. P. No. 3340 of 1989 carries on business in purchase and sale of utensils. Petition relates to assessment under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, the State Act) for the period 13-11-1985 to 2-11-1986. He is a registered dealer under the State Act. Sales Tax Officer completed the assessment on the basis of the report of the Flying Squad. According to the petitioner, though he maintained true and correct accounts and submitted true and correct returns, S.T.O. issued notice in Form-XVI dated 6-11-1987 against proposed assessment and levy of penalty under Section 43(1). Notice proposed levy of penalty under Section 17(3) and assessment under Section 18(4) of the State Act. The petitioners contended that the notice was illegal as it was issued without application of mind, that the petitioner w...
Ghanshyam Puraswani Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1995MP264
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. This order shall dispose of writ petition No. 1173 of 1988, (ii) Writ Petition No. 1183 of 1988, (iii) Writ Petition No. 988 of 1989, (iv) Writ Petition No. 164 of 1990, (v) Writ Petition No. 811 of 1988, (vi) Writ Petition No. 1205 of 1988.2. The petitions at Sr. Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii)deal with lay out plan and whether this plan isbeing observed in letter and spirit. Petition atSr. No. (iv) deal with non-grant of prayermade in building application and petitions atSr. Nos. (v) and (vi) deal with building activity taken in pursuance of concept of deemedsanction. These petitions are being dealt withaccordingly. '3. Writ Petition No. 1173 of 1988: --This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Basant Vihar Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, Maryadit, Gwalior. This is a society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. With a view to develop certain area for residential buildings, a layout plan was submitte...
Neeta Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: I(1995)DMC640
J.G. Chitre, J.1. This revision petition is heard finally on the request of both the Counsel.2. The facts of the matter need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the issue in controversy. Dinesh Kumar s/o R.T. Shukla, R/o Ratlam, filed matrimonial petition in the District Court of Ratlam praying for a decree of divorce from and against his wife Neeta, resident of Freeganj, Ratlam. On 18.1 94 an application was moved by Neeta, challenging the jurisdiction of District Court, Ratlam. A contention to that effect was also raised in written statement in para 11. filed by wife Neeta. The matter was fixed for recording of evidence on 18.1.94. On that day the prayer of no jurisdiction was pressed on behalf of wife Neeta and it was prayed that said issue be decided as preliminary issue. The Court passed an order on same day and ordered that the objection in respect of jurisdiction of the Court would be decided at the time of decision of matrimonial petition.3. Being aggrieved by the said or...
Shyam Harishankar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ209
P.N.S. Chouhan, J.1. In this appeal the appellants challenge their conviction under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment on the charge of riot and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000.00 each, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for six months on the charge of murder with direction for concurrent running of sentences recorded vide judgment dated 10-1-1987 passed in Sessions Trial No. 20/1986 of Hoshangabad Sessions Division.2. The appellants and Harchand (P.W. 1) are residents of village Bhunnasa near Harda. Deceased Ramchand was Sarpanch of that village. On 5-9-1984 Ramchand had come to Harda to attend some Court work. After that he was going to Janpad office along with Harchand. At a short distance from the Janpad office the deceased requested Harchand to follow on foot, himself got on his bicycle and proceeded towards the Janpad office. No sooner he reached in front of Janpad office building he was as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »