Madhya Pradesh Court November 1999 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.
Beni Prasad Vs. Meera Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: I(2001)DMC137
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant who is defendant in the Trial Court against the order dated9.2.1995 whereby his objection to the application for substitution filed by non-applicant No. 1-Todan Singh on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed in his favour by deceased/plaintiff his sister Meera Bai has been rejected.2. Placing reliance to the provisions of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and contention advanced before the Trial Court and is now reiterated in this Court is that without obtaining a probate of the Will in the pending suit, the non-applicant No. 1 could not claim substitution.3. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned held that the provisions of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 particularly Sub-section (2), Clause (i) read with Section 57, Clauses (a) and (b) of the Act do not prohibit enquiry into an application for substitution unde...
Arjun Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT429
Shambhoo Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed by the accused against the judgment & order dated 31-10-94 passed by A.S.J. Narsinghgarh in S.T. No. 149/93 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 10-8-93 at 4 p.m., in village Ganiyari the appellant was making fence by implanting thorny bushes in the field of the deceased Banshilal. The later came to the appellant and asked him not to put hedge there and uprooted 2-3 thorny bushes. On this, the appellant gave axe-blows to the deceased which fell on his head, as a result of which he fell down. Krishnabai (P.W. 1), the wife of the deceased, was working nearby in the field. Hearing cries, her son Raju (P.W. 4) and her brother-in-law Dolatram (P.W. 3) came there. Seeing them, the appellant ran away from the spot. Krishnabai and Dolatram took Banshilal to Police Station Narsinghgarh where Krishnabai lodged F.I.R. Ex. P-1 which was recor...
Smt. BhulIn Dewangan Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT69
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In the course of deciding this writ petition on merits which was filed to assail the 'No Confidence Motion' passed against the petitioner as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Koora, Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra, sitting singly found that in construing the provisions of Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and analogous provisions of the repealed Act as also sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 framed thereunder have been differently construed in several Single Bench decisions of this Court (INFRA) and in these decisions earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Gayasuddin v. Gram Panchayat (1971 JLJ 286) was not noticed, The learned Judge also found that the decision of this Court in Akbar Khan v. S.D.O., Mandleshwar (1997) 2 Vidhi Bhasvar 284] was not noticed in Sharda Bai v. State of M.P. [(1997) 2 MPLJ 291]. The learned Single Judge, therefore has made this reference to the Full Bench for resolving the cleavage of opinions expressed by several...
Dhanna and anr. Vs. Champalal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT610
R.P. Gupta, J.1. The only question involved in second appeal is whether the appellant-defendant is a marginal farmer under M.P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin Sthagan Adhiniyam, 1975 (hereinafter called as Adhiniyam). If he is a marginal farmer under that Act, then the consequences of Section 4 of that Act are to ensue on commencement of Act. One of the consequences is that every debt advanced before the commencement of this Act, including the amount of interest payable by him, to a creditor, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged and no Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit or proceedings against recovery of debt. Even execution proceedings, if the matter is at thatstage, shall stand withdrawn, the debtor shall be released of all the debts. The suits and other proceedings shall abate.2. The marginal farmer under this Act is defined as under :--'(g) 'Marginal farmer' means an agriculturist who,-- (i) in case of a member ...................................................
ismail Khan Vs. Ram Prakash Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP277; 2000(2)MPHT274; 2000(2)MPLJ104
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. Only question Involved in this petition is whether non-fixation of adhesive stamp inscribed for the use of revenue shall render the pronote inadmissible in evidence.2. In the present case, an objection was raised as to admisstblllty of the pronote on the ground that it does not bear the stamp inscribed for the purpose of revenue. The pronote consists of special adhesive stamp of denomination of Rs. 5/-, 2/- and two stamps of 25 paise each. Thus, Rs. 7.50 paise is affixed on the promissory note.3. Only question involved in this case is whether special adhesive stamp can be affixed on a pronote.4. For considering the position of law it will be appropriate to refer to Section 10 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 10 of the Act is reproduced below:--'10. Duties how to be paid.-- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, all duties with which any instruments are chargeable shall be paid, and such payment shall be indic...
M.P.S.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Satish Suryavanshi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR700]; (2001)IIILLJ957MP; 2000(3)MPLJ3
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by Labour Court and Industrial Court.2. Respondent No. 1 Satish Suryavanshi was holding the post of Conductor. His services were terminated vide order dated April 30, 1998. The respondent No. 1 then filed an application under Sections 31, 61, 62 ofMadhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the 'M.P.I.R. Act'),challenging the order of termination. Afterrecording evidence Labour Court recorded afinding that the domestic enquiry wasconducted properly and reasonable opportunitywas provided to delinquent employee. TheLabour Court found that the domestic enquirywas proper and there is no infirmity in thedomestic enquiry. However, the Labour Courtinterfered with the quantum of punishment onthe ground that the passengers have travelledaround 25 kilometres without paying the ticketsand held that misconduct and dishonesty ofrespondent is not proved. The Labour Courtdirected reinstatement of petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›