Madhya Pradesh Court December 1999 Judgments
Jagdish and anr. Vs. Silochnabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1999
Reported in: I(2001)DMC247
Shambhoo Singh, J. 1. Petitioner/accused persons have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 14.3.1990 passed by J.M.F.C., Dewas in Criminal Case No. 1/90 whereby application filed under Sections 177 and 468, Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 1/90 was rejected and the order dated 26.2.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, in Crl. Revn. No. 16/90 which confirmed the same.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 complainant alongwith the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 filed a complaint on 13.9.1989 against the petitioners. This complaint was registered for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Sections 498A and 494,1.P.C. On the first hearing i.e., on 28.2.1990 the petitioner filed an application under Sections 177 and 468, Cr.P.C. alleging that the alleged offences were not committed in the local jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate and the complaint was also barred by ti...
Tag this Judgment!Jokhu Alias Shivnarayan Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT554
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 24-12-1998 (Annex. P-1) passed by District Magistrate, Ujjain, whereby order of externment was passed against the petitioner and an appellate order dated 12-8-99 passed by State (Annex. P-2) rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the order of competent Authority. To appreciate the grievance raised by the petitioner, few facts need mention.2. Superintendent of Police, Ujjain, filed a report under Section 5 (a) & (b) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short, 'the Act') with the District Magistrate, Ujjain, complaining that petitioner is indulging in criminal activities and is also involved in several offences. It was, therefore, concluded that as a result of petitioner's indulging in continuous criminal activities, the life of a general public at large is in danger. This led to issuance of show cause notice to petitioner as required ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar Giri Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1918; 2000(1)MPLJ507
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The applicant was taken into custody in connection with Crime No. 329/99 instituted for an offence punishable under Section 20(i)(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') on the allegation that he was in possession of 15 gms. of 'Ganja'.2. The applicant filed an application for obtaining concession of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal on the ground that he was below 16 years of age, and hence, he was entitled to the benefit as envisaged under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and under Section 437(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').3. It was put forth before the learned Special Judge that the date of birth of the petitioner is 7-10-85 and in support of the same certificate of the school and marksheet were produced. The learned Special Judge appreciating the documents brought on record and observing the appearance of the petitioner came t...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank and ors. Vs. Narendra Narayan Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1619MP; 2000(3)MPLJ196
R.B. Dixit, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by a remand order dated April 16, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Justice T. S. DOABIA) in Writ Petition No. 1206/1993 filed by respondent, the appellants have come up in this Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the directions for reconsideration on punishment awarded to the respondent in a Departmental Enquiry against him.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that:The contesting respondent was posted at Gwarighat Branch, Jabalpur of UCO Bank as Branch Manager when two separate charge sheets were served for different lapses against him. The chargesheet dated January 16, 1988 (P/1) was served for his lapses/acts of omission and commission relating to sanction of a loan of Rs. 30,000/- in the name of a fictitious person, namely Suresh Kumar Yadav. The charge-sheet dated November 2, 1988 (P-II) was served to him for his serious acts of omission and commission pertaining to sanction of number of loans in...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT193
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall decide the connected batch of Petitions Nos. W.P. 2059/99 (Ravi Thakur and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), W.P. 1984/99, (Rajendra Soni v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2080/99 (Ajay Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2082/99 (Thakur Dutt Sharma and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2084/99 (Kanchan Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2085/99 (Dilawar Khan and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2087/99 (Muinuddin v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2124/99 (Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr.), W.P. 2131/99 (Chhotelal Choudhary v. State of M.P.), W.P. 2152/99 (Sita Prasad Tripathi v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2154/99 (Mithilesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), W.P. 2159/99 (Bhagwat Prasad Mahere v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2161/99 (Pooran Pathak v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. 2184/99 (Govind Lal Sahu v. State ...
Tag this Judgment!Keveyam and Company Vs. G.S. Baghel, Additional Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC123(MP)
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri D.D. Vyas, Additional Advocate-General, has submitted that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter because this petition does not fall under purview of Article 226 of the Constitution. According to Shri Vyas it falls under the purview of Article 227 of the Constitution and, therefore, this Court would not be having jurisdiction to hear and decide this petition. Shri G.M. Chaphekar, Senior Counsel, strongly contended that this Court is having jurisdiction to hear and decide this petition because in the petition a prayer has been made for the purpose of issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for the purpose of setting aside the order which has been passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, on November 15, 1988 (annexure D) by which the petitioner has been saddled with the responsibility of paying the additional tax with penalty by holding that the petitioner concealed the transactions which were ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lalita Vs. Motilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC561
ORDERS.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. Defendant-appellant has directed this appeal against the order dated 26.7.1999 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Barwani, in Misc. Case No. 12/98, thereby rejecting the application filed on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 10.11.1997 in Civil Case No. 5A/97 under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent Motilal filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of decree of divorce against the appellant in the Court of 1st Addl. District Judge, Barwani. The notice of the said application was sent to the defendant-appellant by Regd. Post A/D. It is stated that the notice of application sent to the appellant-defendant returned to the Court concerned through the post with the endorsement that the addressee refused to take the letter in question. On the aforesaid report; the learned Trial Court proceeded ex parte against the appellant and on the basis of the evi...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation and anr. Vs. Lalukhan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR208]; (2000)IILLJ236MP
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. Appellants have directed this appeal against the order dated August 11, 1998 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Ujjain, in ESI Case No. 200/86, thereby allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1 Lalukhan under Sections 51, 54, 74 and 75 of E.S.I. Act, 1948.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was working in the Heera Mills Ujjain on the post of weaver. He was insured under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme and his insurance No. was 344353. It is stated that, on November 30, 1985, at about 7.45 a.m. he was working on his loom; at the same time he fell down and thereby sustained fracture in his left leg. The applicant was treated at Patel Nagar Insurance Hospital at Ujjain from December 2, 1985 to February 10, 1986. At the time of discharge, on February 10, 1986 he was referred to, Medical Referee for further treatment and directed to appear before him on February 13, 1986. It is stated that on February 13, 1986 when he appeared befor...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan and anr. Vs. Smt. Premkunwar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC337
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. Appellants (owner and driver of the defending vehicle) have directed this appeal against the common award dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Khargone in Claim Case Nos. 51/88 and 12/92 thereby allowing the application filed by Premkunwarbai and others and awarding compensation of Rs. 78,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.6.1988 appellant No. 1, as a result of rash and negligent driving of Rajdoot motor cycle bearing registration No. CII 2228 met with an accident resulting into death of one Chintaman, travelling on the rear seat of the same motor cycle. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 6 to 11 separately filed two claim petitions against the appellants and respondent No. 12 on the averment that Smt. Premkunwarbai is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Chintaman and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are her children whereas re...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar and anr. Vs. Ku. Sevika and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC641
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The appellants have directed this appeal against the order dated 3rd December, 1998 rendered by III M.A.C.T. Dewas in Misc. Civil Case No. 12/98 thereby rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside an ex parte award dated 27.9.1997 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 252/96.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents have filed a claim petition for award of compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing Registration No. MP 13A-3304. The said scooter, at the relevant time, was driven by appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 was registered owner of the said vehicle.3. On service of notice of the aforesaid claim petition on the appellants, they resisted the claim by filing the reply. The appellants have also engaged the Counsel in the aforesaid claim case to defend them. It is stated that on 8.8.1997 when the c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »