Madhya Pradesh Court November 1998 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.
Smt. Sudha Tripathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: AIR1999MP188
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashment of Annexure P-10 agreement entered into by Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') with the respondent No. 5 and letter dtd. 13-8-1996, Annexure P-12 whereby the District Industries Centre, General Manager has cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. The further prayer of the petitioner is to call for the records of the tenders dated 20-12-1995, 7-2-1996 and 23-5-1996 and deprecate the action of the Corporation as it has in a hurried manner effected the sale overlooking the actual price. In essence, the prayer is to set aside the same.2. The facts as have been unfurled in the petition are that the petitioner had availed a term loan of Rs. 2,10,000/- for opening of an industry, namely, Sudha Chholdari Tent & Tarpoline Industries at Varadih in the District of Satna. ...
Karan Singh S/O Hanuman Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ432
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had challenged the vires of Clause 11 (a) and (b) of M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (henceforth 'the Rules of 1963') framed under M.P. Industrial (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961' for short). However, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not question the vires of aforesaid clauses before me presumably because a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Labour Union v. Bharat Electricals Limited, Bhopal, reported in 1989 MPLJ 183, upheld the validity of similar clause. No opinion is, therefore, expressed upon the validity of aforesaid clauses. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 19-5-1989 (Annexure-A), passed by Labour Court, Bhopal and order dated 4-3-1992, (Annexure-B), passed by Industrial Court, Indore refusing to reinstate him with back wages.2. The undisputed facts of this case are that t...
Narayandas Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1999MP197
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under A. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of appropriate writ to declare the proceedings of the meeting of Nagar Panchayat, Nasrullganj held on 24-9-97 vide Annexure-P-1 as illegal and further to issue a writ prohibiting the President of the said Nagar Panchayat to function as such.2. The essential facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as Councillor from Ward No. 8 of the Nagar Panchayat, Nasrullaganj, and thereafter, he was elected as the Vice President of the said Nagar Panchayat. It is stated that he had been working in the interest of public and from time to time was exposing the misdeeds in the corporation which had caused annoyance to the President and a limited number of members who contrived a situation to bring a no confidence motion against him. It is putforth that the President, respondent No. 3 herein, does not have th...
Ramesh Kumar Radheshyam Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ423
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. By impugned judgment dated 14-8-1997 in Sessions Trial No. 83/97, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, Distt. Raigarh, has convicted each of the accused/appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code. Each of them have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred), in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months for offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence for offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code has been imposed.2. The prosecution case stated in brief is that deceased Sangeeta was married to accused/appellant No. 1 Ramesh Kumar in December 1995. The accused/appellant No. 2 Radheshyam Agrawal and accused/appellant No. 3 Leelawati are the parents of accused/appellant No. 1 Ramesh Kumar while accused/appellant No. 4 Durga is his sister. After her marriage Sangeet...
Reeta Sharan @ Saroj Sharan Vs. Shelendra Ganpat Prasad Sharan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ332
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Being aggrieved by grant of less maintenance amount, the applicant wife has filed this revision petition for enhancement.2. Short question for consideration in this revision petition is that what is the real income of the non-applicant. It is also required to be considered whether out of the total salary, maintenance amount is to be paid to the wife or the amount has to be paid from the carry home salary3. The documents show that the total emoluments which the non- applicant is receiving from his employer are Rs. 10,074.56. The details show that the applicant is required to pay a sum of Rs. 625/- as E.P.F., Rs. 200/- as income tax, Rs. 922.80 as charge for premium, Rs. 500/- towards P.F. loan, Rs. 10/- per month as Union Fee, Rs. 200/- towards income tax (it appears to have been counted twice), Rs. 850/- towards Housing Loan, Rs. 50/- towards cycle loan, Rs. 450/- towards festival advance, Rs. 400/- towards personal loan, Rs. 250/- towards conveyance loan, Rs. 200/...
Vishal Pharmaceuticals and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ378
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioners are hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by CJM, Dhar in the matter of Cr. Case No. 524/85 whereby he has convicted the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Cosmetics and Drugs Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) which has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge Dhar in the matter of criminal appeal No. 229/1997.2. The facts which need to be narrated for the purpose of unfolding the matter are as mentioned hereunder:3. On 26-6-1984 Drug Inspector Shri Deo Kumar Barjatya visited the shop styled as M/s Ajay Khatri Medical Hall, Dhar, and purchased capsules of Vitriplex-C-Forte, batch No. 127, manufactured in the month of April 1984 and having the expiry date as October 1985 for analysis as he suspected that it was a drug below the standard prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Those cap...
Ranjit Kaur Wd/O Sardar Bhupendrasingh Mata Vs. Bhagwant Kaur W/O Sard ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ348
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the decree dated 25-3-1994, declaring the plaintiffs to be the successors-in-interest along with the defendant having one third share each in the properties left by Bhupendrapalsingh Mata, the deceased; the defendant has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the decree passed by the trial Court.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiff-respondents, and have carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this first appeal lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of Bhupendrapalsingh Mata, since deceased and the plaintiff No. 2 is his daughter from his pre-deceased wife. The defendant is the second wife of Bhupendrapalsingh Mata who had died in an motor accident on 26-1-1985, while being posted as a Forest Range Officer in the employment of the State Government.4....
Mangal Ram and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ505
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. Accused/appellants stand convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced as under : both the accused/appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) for offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code while they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) for offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, by judgment dated 2-8-1997 in Sessions Trial No. 78/95 by Sessions Judge, Sidhi.2. The deceased Sudha was the second wife of Ramayan Prasad, son of appellants and was married to him in the month of May 1991. 'Gauna' ceremony was performed in October 1991. Ramayan Prasad, the husband of the deceased was employed in the Army and was posted at Ahmedabad. His parents - the appellants resided at Mawai where the incident occurred. Sudha died of burn injuries on 7-4-1995, i.e., within about four yea...
Mangal Ram and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4342
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. Accused/appellants stand convicted under Section 304B and 498A of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced as under: both the accused/appellants have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) for offence punishable under Section 304B of I.P.C. while they have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years and topay fine of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) for offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C, by judgment dt. 2-8-97 in Sessions Trial No. 78/95 by Sessions Judge, Sidhi.2. The deceased Sudha was the second wife of Ramayan Prasad, son of appellants and was married to him in the month of May 1991. 'Gauna' ceremony was performed in October 1991. Ramayan Prasad, the husband of the deceased was employed in the army and was posted at Ahmedabad. His parents the appellants resided at Mawai where the incident occurred. Sudha died of burn injuries on 7-4-95, i,e., within about four years of her marriage.3. The prosecution case ...
Hirday Narayan Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR607]; (1999)IIILLJ1226MP
B.A. Khan, J. 1. Petitioner a Sub-Registrar, was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service vide order dated November 24, 1995 passed by Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps under provisions of Rule 42 (1) of M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 after having completed 25 years continuous service. He assails this order in O.A. No. 99/1996 before the State Administrative Tribunal on the ground that it was passed arbitrarily, in mala fide exercise of power and in disregard of his service record and the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject matter. It was also alleged that impugned order was not in public interest as it did not indicate that it was passed on the recommendation of the screening committee. It was further contended that the order passed by way of punishment on the basis of the pending departmental enquiries and without any consideration being accorded to his whole service record. 2. All this was resisted by the respondents by as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »