Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Dr. Neelu Gupta Vs. J.N. Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999MP134; 1999(1)MPLJ728
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner working as a Lecturer with Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (for short `IGKV'), being desirous of higher studies, made an application to the respondent No. 2 that she be permitted to go for the Ph. D. Course with the respondent No. 1 Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (for short 'JNKVV'). The petitioner made an application to the respondent No. 1, but the said application was not considered by the respondent No. 1, therefore, Dr. K. C. Gupta wrote a letter to the Directorate of Instructions of JNKVV. In response to the said letter on 10-7-98, the Director of Instructions informedsaid Dr. K. C. Gupta that in accordance with the brief information booklet, specially clause 11, a candidate having two degrees from JNKVV cannot be considered for admission to Ph. D. degree of the University and as the petitioner was already holding two degrees viz.; B. V. Sc. & A.H. and M. V. Sc. & A. H. from the University, she was not considere...
Balmukund Singhal Vs. Biharilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ353
ORDERFakhruddin, J.Petitioner in person.Shri P.D. Bidua, Counsel who is present is given notice.1. Heard.Record perused.The order passed by the District Judge, Gwalior dated 10-12-1998 is also perused.2. Petitioner contended that the court-below is proceeding in the matter hurriedly and the application filed by him has been rejected. His contention is that he would not get fair trial, as according to him, most of the applications filed by him have been rejected without any reason.3. This contention has no force. The applicant had filed an application for amendment on 1-2-1999, which was allowed by the court-below and the non-applicant against that preferred a revision, which has been dealt with separately. It is therefore not correct that all the applications have been rejected.4. A perusal of the record further shows that the matter is pending since quite a long. The orders passed by the court-below against which revisions were preferred before this Court are detailed orders and the H...
Damroolal Gagannath Prasad Pathak and ors. Etc. Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP15; 1999(2)MPLJ678
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. In both the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for restraining the respondents from realising market fee on 'MAIDA', contending that it is not a notified agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'Act', and hence, cannot be subjected to payment of market fee under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act.2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. Petitioners are either manufacturers of bread or manufacturers of biscuits using 'Maida' or dealers in grain including 'Maida'. It is their allegation that the Krishi Upaj Mandi i.e., respondent No. 1 in both the cases insists for payment of market fee on 'Maida'. it is their contention that Maida not being a notified agricultural produce, cannot be subjected to market fee.3. Sri Abhay Sapre appears on behalf of the petitioners, whereas, respondent No. 1 is represented by Sri C. L. Kotecha and Sri Ar...
Dr. YasmIn Khan Vs. Samiullah Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: AIR1999MP214; 1999(1)MPLJ626
ORDERR.P. Gupta, J.1. The only legal question involved in this appeal is whether the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Bhopal who tried the suit for divorce filed by a muslim wife against her husband, and the suit was tried from inception till completion of evidence by the both parties and the matter was fixed for final argument, was not a proper trial and the plaint could be ordered to be returned for presentation in the proper civil Court of lowest jurisdiction in the district i.e. Civil Judge, Class II, as was ultimately directed by the order of the learned Distt. Judge, on objection taken by the husband/respondent at the stage when the case was fixed for final arguments.2. It may be noticed that the civil suit for seeking divorce by the appellant against the husband was filed. The case was filed before the III Addl. Distt. Judge, Bhopal as distribution memo prepared by the Distt. Judge in March, 94 under provisions of Section 15 of the M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958, directed, under item N...
Preetam and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC420
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellants Preetam, Dabbal and Nanhi Bai have been con- victed under Sections 306 and 498A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the first offence and they have not been separately sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC.2. Deceased Pusiabai was married to appellant No. 1 Preetam in the year 1983. Appellant No. 2 Dabbal is elder brother of Preetam. Appellant No. 3 Nanhi Bai is their mother. Pusiabai committed suicide by burning herself on 16.12.1985. She had come from her brother's house on 13.12.1985 with her husband. The prosecution case is that the appellants were demanding money which had been received by father of the deceased in a land acquisition case. Her brother Hemraj (PW 7) had given some money from time to time to the appellants. They were, however, not satisfied.3. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the charges under Sect...
Pramila Bai W/O Surendra Singh, Sarpanch Vs. Sub-divisional Officer an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ209
ORDER1. These L.P.A. Nos. 5 and 8 both of 1999 are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of the parties as both arise from the same judgment dated 17-12-1998 passed in W.P. No. 4984/98 and 4091/97. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by one and common order.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri A. S. Jha and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri R. K. Shrivastava. He states that he also represent respondent No. 3 though he has not filed the power.3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two points. Firstly, that the election petition filed against the declaration of the result was barred by time as under Section 122(2) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 the limitation provided is 'thirty days', and, secondly, the cost awarded in writ petition by the learned Single Judge is not only excessive but arbitrary.4. So far as first point is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submi...
Arun Chauhan Vs. Sakharam and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1187
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') the claimant appellant has called in question the sustainability of the award passed on 25.11.1994 by the 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 66 of 1989 whereby the said Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000 for the injuries sustained by him.2. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the claimant-appellant was an Engineering College student and was aged about 20 years. On 19.9.88, he was travelling in a jeep bearing the registration No. MBS 129 (taxi) along with other passengers. Unfortunately, the said taxi was hit by a truck bearing registration No. MBT 9025 which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver, respondent No. 1 herein. Because of this accident, the claimant-appellant received serious injuries on the head, eyes and collar-bone and ankle. According to him, he was admitted in Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai from 20.9.1988 to 17.1...
Ravi @ Ravindra Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC133
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant Ravi @ Ravindra has been convicted under Section 306, Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide by his wife and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. Deceased Anju was married to accused Ravi on 16.5.1991 and she commit- ted suicide by burning herself on 12.1.1992. This incident took place in the house of her mother at Balaghat. The prosecution is that accused Ravi was demanding T.V. and fridge as dowry. He was also demanding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for starting some business. The accused was subjecting his wife to cruelty. On 4.1.1992, deceased Anju and accused Ravi came to Balaghat. Deceased Anju was bitten by dog at Jabalpur. The accused left Anju in the house of her mother. He told that he was going to Bhopal. Instead of going to Bhopal he stayed in the house of Basant Kumar (PW 2). He is husband of Anju's elder sister. The accused sent Satish Kumar (PW 7) to bring the key from his wife....
Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC140
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellants Ramesh Kumar, Rajni and Ramnath have been convicted under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.2. Deceased Guddi was married to appellant Ramesh Kumar. Her dead body was taken out from the well near the house of the accused on 27.5.1993.3. The prosecution case is that the marriage of Guddi with accused Ramesh Kumar had taken place within 7 years of her death. She committed suicide by jumping into the well. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused Ramesh Kumar. All the accused persons were demanding radio, watch and cycle as dowry. They were harassing Guddi for not bringing these items from her father. She used to make complaint to her brother Ram Pratap (PW 1) regarding the demand of dowry and harassment. A Panchayat was called 15 days before the death of Guddi in the house of Ram Pratap (PW 1). In that Panchayat, all the three appellants were present. Guddi made a complaint in that Panchayat that th...
Gangadhar Rai Jadhav Vs. Asha Lata Ghatge
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC199
S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order and decree dated 2.8.1997 passed by VI Addl. Distt. Judge, Raipur in M.J.C. No. 1/96 whereby the Addl. Distt. Judge has awarded Rs. 1,500/- p.m. to the applicant from the date of passing of the order i.e. from 2.8.1997.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the respondent was entitled to the maintenance only if she proves that she has been deserted without reasonable cause or without her consent or against her will. However, issue No. 2 framed by the Court below is to the effect that whether the appellant had kept a concubine Savitri without her consent. It is clear from Section 18(1)(e) that if a person keeps a concubine in the house then the wife is entitled to live separately from her husband.3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court came to the conclusion that as there is clear admission of the app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »