Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Bahor Singh Vs. Devi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT468; 2000(1)MPLJ126
S.S. Jha, J.This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :--(i) 'Whether the party having not chosen to contest the suit in the trial Court and has a right of appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. ?(ii) Whether in view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. no appeal could be preferred by the defendant ?(iii) Whether the lower appellate Court had made out a new case against the pleadings of the parties ?(iv) Whether the decree passed by the lower appellate Court is against the provisions of law and is perverse ?'2. Before adjudicating upon the questions of law, facts giving rise to this appeal are necessary :The plaintiff-appellant has filed a Civil Suit that the suit land bearing Survey No. 18, having an area 1.872 hectare situated in village Padrat, Tehsil and District Vidisha is held by him as Bhumiswami. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to his father Karan Singh and cousin Veersingh. The plaintiff is using this land continuously fo...
Dr. Nisha Malviya and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ671
ORDERR.P. Gupta, J. 1. Parties are heard finally.2. The applicants, who are Doctors, have been charge-sheeted by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. No. 227/98, for offences punishable under Sections 313, 201 and 376 of the I.P.C. There are five accused standing trial, these two are Doctors. One of the accused had committed rape on minor girl aged about 12 years and made her pregnant. The allegations are that two other co-accused took this girl, who was carrying five months pregnancy, to Bhopal to these two doctors, i.e. applicants. They terminated her pregnancy. So the charge on them is firstly causing miscarriage without consent of girl or even her guardian and thus causing disappearance of evidence of rape, which was committed by the accused Riyaz Ahamad. Secondly they committed miscarriage.3. There are two fold submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants against the framing of charges - one that the rape was committed allegedly in Raisen District while the mis...
Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1296MP; 2000(1)MPLJ10
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated August 27, 1994 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 1 Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for recovery of Rs. 11,00,299.52 paise as arrears of land revenue.2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company carrying on the business of spinning at Bilaspur. A Receiver was appointed by the High Court of Bombay in a civil suit filed by the Industrial Development Bank of India for recovery of its dues and the receiver took possession of the petitioner's Mill on March 25, 1992. It remained in possession of the Receiver upto August 3, 1994. It was released as a result of settlement between the petitioner and the IDBI in the civil suit. On January 30, 1993 the respondent No. 2 union had submitted an application under Section 33C(1) of the Act for recovery of the wages of certain wo...
Akhlak and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4899; 2000(1)MPHT241
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. By this petition under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicants who have been arrested by the Police Mandideep in connection with Crime No. 227/98 for committing offences punishable under Sections 467, 471, 478, 487 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and Sections 34, 36 and 39 of M.P. Excise Act have prayed for grant of bail.2. Undisputedly, the accused persons were arrested on 27-12-98 for transporting illicit liquor. The prosecution case is that the applicants in a tanker of Indian Oil Company which is generally used for carrying and transporting L.P.G. were transporting the liquor without any authority. The prosecution case is that the accused persons and others after forging certain documents used the same for transporting the liquor and as each of them was involved in commission of the crime, they were required to be arrested. Undisputedly, the accused persons were arrested on 27-12-98. It is also not in dispute before me...
Kailash Kumar Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT143
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26-4-1996 (Annexure P-5) of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Betul (the Prescribed Authority) by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of Surpanch of Shahpur Gram Panchayat under Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). He has also assailed the appellate order dated 18-3-1997 passed by the Additional Collector and the revisional order dated 24-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner by which the impugned order of the S.D.O. has been upheld.2. The petitioner was Surpanch of Gram Panchayat, Shahpur. He was directly elected to this office in the year 1994. A show cause notice was issued to him by respondent No. 4 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Betul on 30-10-1995 in which fifteen charges were levelled against him. That is Annexure P-1. He submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 10-11-1995 giving his explanati...
Kailash Kumar Parmanand Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ722
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26-4-1996 (Annexure P-5) of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Betul (the prescribed Authority) by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch of Shahpur Gram Panchayat under Section 40 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). He has also assailed the appellate order dated 18-3-1997 passed by the Additional Collector and the revisional order dated 24-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner by which the impugned order of the S.D.O. has been upheld.2. The petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Shahpur. He was directly elected to this office in the year 1994. A show cause notice was issued to him by respondent No. 4 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Betul on 30-10-1995 in which fifteen charges were levelled against him. That is Annexure P-l. He submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 10-11-1995 giving his explana...
Ashok Singh Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1022; 2000(1)MPLJ235
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J. 1. Petitioner Ashok Singh Rathore has moved this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the investigation alleged to have been initiated by Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Gwalior, on an alleged report dated 13-8-98 by some (one) Suresh Chandra Sharma.2. Subtractum of the petition is that petitioner was working in Transport Department as Sub-Inspector and presently posted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer at Katni. The Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt of Gwalior, registered an offence at Crime No. 81 of 1968 on an alleged allegation of Suresh Chandra Sharma. At the relevant time i.e. in the month of August, 1998, the petitioner was posted in the office of Regional Transport Office, Gwalior, as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (in short A.R.T.O.). Unfortunately, the relationship of the petitioner got highly strained with the then Regional Transport Officer (in short R.T.O), Gwalior, Shri Virendra Singh Sisodiya so much so that the ...
Chhatarsingh Vs. Gajendra Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: AIR1999MP284; 2000(1)MPLJ118
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. AGGRIEVED by the Order dated 5-2-1998 (Annexure P - 11) of the Returning Officer, Dhar, rejecting nomination papers filed by the Petitioner as a candidate to contest General Elections for 12th Lok Sabha from Dhar (S.T.) Lok Sabha Constituency, held on 22-2-1998, in which respondent No. 1 Gajendra Singh was declared elected defeating respondents No. 2 and 3; the Petitioner has filed this Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (for short, 'The R.P. Act'), calling in question the election of respondent No. 1 on the ground specified in the Clause (c) of Section 100(1) of the R.P. Act, to obtain under noted reliefs: (i) that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared as void; and (ii) that Order dated 5-2-98 (Annexure p. 11) be quashed. 2. Although the 12th Lok Sabha has since been dissolved rendering the relief No, 1 above as in fructuous, the petitioner has been allowed to prosecute this petition as the Order (Annexure P ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›