Madhya Pradesh Court September 1998 Judgments
Rakesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4915
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J.1. The accused/appellant stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10(ten) years for offence under Section 304B of I.P.C. while he has not been separately sentenced for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, by judgment dated 29-11-1997, in Sessions Trial No. 59/90 by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandla.2. Undisputably, the accused/appellant was married to deceased Radha bai in the month of June, 1989. She committed suicide on 28-11-89 i.e. within about six months of marriage by consuming some poisonous substance. Sushila Bai (P.W. 2) and Jamuna Prasad (P.W. 3) are the parents of deceased Radha Bai while Kamal Kumar Chaorasia (P.W. 6) and Vimal are their sons and brother of deceased Radha Bai.3. The prosecution case stated in brief is that the accused/appellant and his parents used to demand dowry from deceased Radha Bai and since the above de...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Bai Sangewar and ors. Vs. Gopi Chand Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ112
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22-5-1998, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, in Case No. 17/90(8) 89-90, whereby the applicants' application under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code was rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow campass. The non-applicant filed an application under Section 23-A(b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act') on the ground of bona fide requirement in respect of a shop, bearing House No. 274/1, situate at Baijnath Para, Raipur. The applicants predecessor-in-title was carrying on the business of tailoring in the aforesaid shop. On 19-7-1991, the Rent Controlling Authority passed an ex parte order against the tenant and directed him to deliver possession of the suit premises. Consequently, late Ramkrishna Rao, the predecessor-in-title of the applicants, was dispossessed.3. After execution of the ex parte order passed by the Rent Controlling Autho...
Tag this Judgment!Kanshiram Vs. Shantibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC472
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The applicant, husband of the non-applicant Shantibai, has directed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for quashing the orders of the Court below dated 20.2.1998 and21.2.1997 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1997 and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biaora in Misc. Criminal Case No. 35 of 1987, whereby the learned Courts below granted maintenance allowance in favour of the non-applicant Shantibai and her minor children at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from the date of filing of the application.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that after separating the non-applicant and the minor children; he transferred agricultural land and the house for residence in favour of the minor children for their maintenance and as the non-applicant and the minor children are able to maintain themselves out of the income of the agricultural land, not entitled fo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkhilawan S/O Ramniwaz Baiswar Vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ576
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 5014/93 (Ramkhilawan Baiswar v. Northern Coal Field Ltd. and Anr.) and Writ Petition No. 5015/93 (Jagdhari Baiswar v. Northern Coal Field Ltd. and Anr.).2. Each of the petitioner has filed the petition seeking relief that the respondents be directed to consider the case of each of the petitioner and to provide them the employment to Class-IV posts as per the eligibility and suitability in the light of command of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.3. Placing absolute reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 920, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioners lands have been acquired for the respondents and as each of the petitioner is a land oustee, he is entitled to employment under the respondents. The facts in nut- shell are that each of the petitioner belongs to Baiswar caste which is a declared and notified Scheduled Caste in State of...
Tag this Judgment!Tourist Approved Guide Association and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1999MP178; 1999(1)MPLJ275
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction annulling the scheme of enlisting licensing of touristguides and controlling and restricting their profession by mere executive fiat varying from time to time without the sanction of any law. The petitioners have further sought a direction that the respondents may be directed to create some autonomous body to regulate and control tourism like other profession. It is also prayed that respondents may be prohibited and restricted from regulating this business.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a Tourist Approved Guide Association, Khajuraho and Shri Order P. Sharma is the President along with Shri Sudhir Sharma, Gangaprasad and Brijendra Singh who are working as guides at Khajuraho, Distt. Chhatarpur, M P. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are members of this Association. It is alleged that Govt. of India invites applications by advertising in newspapers for suitable candidates...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC701
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Trial Court convicting for an offence under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months, and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI of three months.2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Naseem Bano was married with petitioner Salim and they resided together as husband and wife for some days. The complainant alleged that after the marriage Salim and his parents demanded dowry from the parents of Naseem Bano, though at the time of said marriage which took place on 9.2.1983, her father had gifted the nuptial gifts to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The said amount was allegedly 5 to 7 thousand rupees. As per the allegation of Naseem Bano on 19.1.1984 she was driven out of the house for getting the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!ikarar Ahmed and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ429
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. The lawyers appearing for the concerned parties have been heard.2. Record has also been perused.3. It appears from the order which has been assailed by this revision petition that the sessions trial has been directed to be expedited and completed by 15th of October, '98, by order of Division Court of this Court, Indore Bench. In view of this aspect of the matter this revision is admitted for its final hearing today and is being decided today after hearing it finally.4. The point of debate and controversy is the non-examination of witness Nawab alias Amar Hussain, resident of Rampur, U.P. who happens to be a person who has been interrogated during the course of investigation but not cited as a prosecution witness to be examined in the Court by the prosecution and not to be examined by it.5. Shri A.H. Khan, submitted that this witness is very important for the cause of defence of the petitioner but he is not being summoned by the prosecution which is under the infl...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ku. Vijaya Raje
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR380(MP); 1999(1)MPLJ674
B.A. Khan, J.1. The million dollar question that arises in these appeals directed against a common judgment passed in a bunch of writ petitions is 'whether the Assessing Officer was competent to make a reference to the Valuation Officer for determining the value of the asset/s under Section 16A(1), in reassessment proceedings under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The facts leading to the controversy lie in a narrow compass. Appellant No. 2 initiated reassessment proceedings against the respondent and put her on notice for the assessment year 1981-91 (sic) in exercise of power under Section 17, He thereafter referred the matter to appellant No. 3 for valuation of the property in question. Pursuant thereto this appellant issued notice to the respondent under Section 16A(1).3. The respondent felt aggrieved by the two notices and filed writ petitions assessment year wise calling in question these notices but limiting the attack only to the notice issued by the Valuation Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Singh S/O Preetam Singh and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ644
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19-1-1998, passed by Vth Additional District Judge, iDurg, in Civil Suit No. 1-B/97.2. The applicants submitted that the trial Court was right in holding that the loan in question was sufficiently secured by the non-applicant No. 1- Central Bank of India because it obtained documents of hypothecation and mortgage from the applicants and consequently there was no occasion for grant of temporary injunction restraining the applicants from transacting their business with the non-applicant No. 3-State Bank of India from depositing and withdrawing the amount according to their requirements. It was urged that despite the above conclusion the trial Court wrongly required to the applicants to furnish a solvent security of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) and a personal bond in the like amount.3. In the opinion of this Court, there is merit in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that there was no reason ...
Tag this Judgment!Buddha @ Mahendar Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ492
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. The accused/appellant stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, three years and seven years respectively, by judgment dated 19-6-1997, in Sessions Trial No. 130/95, by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg.2. Undisputably, prosecutrix Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) is the daughter of Chintaram (P.W.4). Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) used to reside with her parents at Model Town, Bhilai. The accused/appellant was well known to her and was her neighbour. The accused/appellant had taken prosecutrix Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) with him to Nehru Nagar and thereafter to his maternal uncle at Tata Nagar.3. The prosecution case stated in brief is that prosecutrix Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) was a minor girl, aged about 13 years at the time of incident. The accused/appellant on the assurance of marrying Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) had enticed her to come along with him. He had taken prosecutrix Laxmi Bai (P....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »