Madhya Pradesh Court September 1996 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.
Gulam Ahmed Vs. Haji Maulana Mohammad Zahoor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)MPLJ703
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. They are heard on the objection Under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant. This Court, while allowing the revision filed by the applicant, reversed the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur dated 12-7-1990 passed in Criminal Revision No. 19/89 and affirmed that of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur dated 18-12-1988 passed in Complaint Case No. 1154/88, discharging the applicant from the liability of an offence Under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.2. Subsequent to the dismissal of the revision petition, the non-applicant filed an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Criminal Case No. 3680/95 and this Court while exercising the inherent powers, recalled the order dated 8-8-1994 passed in Criminal Revision No. 595/90.3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the Court from altering or review...
Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(91)ELT569(MP)
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. These petitions, filed by the same petitioner, are being heard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order. Petitionwise facts are as under :-(i) M.P. No. 434/87 : The petitioner has filed this petition on 10-4-1987 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the under-noted reliefs :-(1) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued to the respondents quashing the show cause notice (Annexure P).(2) That a writ mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent not to continue with the proceedings on the basis of show cause notice dated 2-3-1987 (Annexure P).(2A) That a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to refund to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 21,15,725.36 as per details given in Annexure L.(2B) That a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued declar...
Akti Bai Vs. Bulku Lal Baghel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC373
Rajeev Gupta, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Akti Bai, who claims herself to be wife of non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 14.2.1992, passed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 175/90, whereby the order dated 25.6.1990, passed by J.M.F.C, Raipur in M.Cr.C. No. 7/89, was set aside.2. Petitioner Smt. Akti Bai initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C., against her husband, non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel, for grant of maintenance. Non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel, in his reply to the above application, denied the fact of the alleged marriage between him and petitioner Smt. Akti Bai. The petitioner examined Akti Bai (AW/1), Shakun Bai (AW/2), Tetki Bai (AW/3) and Keshavram (AW/4), in support of her case.3. Non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel on the other hand examined Kanhaiya Lal (NAW/1), Bulku Lal Banghel (NAW/2), Sukhdev Baghel (NAW/3), Lekhanlal Satnami (NAW/4), Gauri Bai (NAW/5), Rukhmani Bai (NA...
Mukesh @ Mubarik Sheikh Vs. Neelophar W/O Mukesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ677
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard Shri A. H. Khan, learned counsel with Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for applicant. Shri S. A. Mev, counsel for Opponent No. 1. Shri S. H. Sen, Dy. G. A. for State. The evidence has been examined.This revision petition has been admitted only on the point of quantum of alimony. Shri Khan, submitted that the applicant is saddled with responsibility of maintaining his second wife and the children begotten from her. He pointed that the petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 1,173/- per month as muster clerk in Municipal Corporation, Indore. It is his argument that in view of this meagre amount of income, it is not possible for applicant to pay alimony of Rs. 500/- to opponent No. 1. At this juncture Shri Khan invited attention of this court to the observations made by the trial Court in respect of income of the applicant.2. Shri S. A. Mev, learned counsel appearing for opponent No. 1 pointed that it has come in the evidence of petitioner himself that his house was co...
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Jagrania Wd/O Rajka ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)MPLJ235
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. By this appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) the appellants challenge the award dated 11-7-1994, passed in Claim Case No. 35/91 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi.2. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 after notice of appeal have filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of compensation.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are these :On 6-3-1991, at about 10.00 p.m. deceased Rajkaran, aged 25 years, with his wife the respondent No. 1 and son Lavlesh, aged 6 years was returning to his residence in village after attending a marriage feast. A stage carriage bus No. MKH 7836 driven by respondent No. 3 in the course of employment of appellants which was coming from Shaktinagar for going to Jabalpur, dashed the deceased Rajkaran and Lavlesh as a result of which both died at the spot. A report was lodged at Police Station Bargawan. The bus was seized by the police and after investigation a chall...
Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr. Vs. Jagrania and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC143; 1998ACJ53
S.K. Dubey, J.1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act') the appellants challenge the award dated 11.7.1994, passed in Claim Case No. 135 of 1991 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi.2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after notice of appeal have filed cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of compensation.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are these: On 6.3.1991, at about 10.00 p.m. deceased Rajkaran, aged 25 years, with his wife, respondent No. 1 and son Lavlesh, aged 6 years was returning to his residence in village after attending a marriage feast. A stage carriage bus No. MKM 7836 driven by respondent No. 3 in the course of employment of appellants which was coming from Shakti Nagar for going to Jabalpur dashed the deceased Rajkaran and Lavlesh as a result of which both died at the spot. A report was lodged at Police Station, Bargawan. The bus was seized by the police and after investigation a challa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagirath and Bros. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR483(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The identical relief of restoration, structured and spun on the identical ground of non-availability of senior counsel due to his having gone out of country at the relevant dates of dismissal of the miscellaneous civil cases, supported by identical affidavit of counsel whose instrument of appointment as pleader was not placed on record of those cases, is pressed in these cases, fifteen in number, analogously and is thus being considered in this common order.2. Shunning prolixity, we may put the prologue. Dissatisfied by refusal of the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed question or questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the applicant filed miscellaneous civil cases under Section 256(2) of the Act which suffered mortality on account of non-appearance and failure to take necessary steps.3. Right at the threshold it may be stated that the miscellaneous civil cases, dismissed in default, were registered on applicat...
Ramesh Chand Agrawal Vs. Gopalkrishna Upadhyay and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ459
T.S. Doabia, J.1. A decree for eviction has been passed against the present appellant, under section 12(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The finding recorded by the first appellate Court is that the appellant had set up a title in himself and therefore, he has committed a disqualification and has lost his right to remain in possession. As to in what manner this finding as to disclaimer has been recorded be noticed :2. It is an admitted case that the appellant was given on rent an open piece of land. On this piece of land a small Patore/Hut was constructed by the present appellant. He applied for electric connection. In the application it has been submitted by him that he is owner of the house. Some application was also moved before the Municipal Council in which he claimed ownership of the building in question. As these above factors were taken note of while coming to the conclusion that the appellant has disclaimed the title of the landlord. It is this find...
S.K. Singhal Fathechand Singhal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3145; 1997(2)MPLJ220
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. This petition is finally decided for the purpose of avoiding obstruction to the trial.2. It is the prayer of the applicant that court should give directions to the witness Vijay Kumar (complainant) to bring some documents which are in his possession and control which are connected with the trial of the petitioner and his defence in it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that those documents were relevant and necessary for the trial, however, when the prayer was made for issuing directions to the said witness Vijay Kumar to bring those documents at the time of his evidence, the court rejected his prayer by observing that the petitioner-accused may make a prayer for calling those documents to be produced in the court in his defence through defence witness.3. Shri Jaisingh submitted that those documents are necessary at the time of evidence of complainant Vijay Kumar because those documents would be required for confronting complainant Vijay Kumar at the t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhagirath and Bros.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(MP)239
ORDERA. R. TIWARI, J. :Identical relief of restoration, structured and spun on identical ground of non-availability of the senior counsel due to his having gone out of country at the relevant dates of dismissal of Misc. Civil Cases, supported by identical affidavit of the counsel whose instrument of appointment as pleader was not placed on record of those cases, is pressed in these cases, fifteen in number, analogously and is thus being considered in this common order.2. Shunning prolixity, we may put the prologue. Dissatisfied by refusal of the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed question or questions under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the applicant filed Misc. Civil Cases under s. 256(2) of the Act which suffered mortality on account of non-appearance and failure to take necessary steps.3. Right at the threshold it may be stated that the Misc. Civil Cases, dismissed in default, were registered on applications submitted under s. 256(2) of the Act.4....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »