Madhya Pradesh Court November 2000 Judgments
Kishanlal Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT360
ORDERS.S. Jha, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved b the order Annexure P-1 dated 19-7-1999 where by his appointment has been cancelled on the enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna and respondent No. 6 Shri Mohammad Islam Khan has been appointed in place of petitioner.2. Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application for appointment under a scheme known as Madhya Pradesh Education Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Scheme'). The Education Committee has considered the case of the petitioner and prepared a provisional panelin which petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1. In pursuance of the recommendations petitioner's appointment was approved by the Project Officer vide Order dated 15-1-1999 Annexure P-5. Petitioner was appointed in Alternative School Harijan Chak in Village Goura. After the appointment, respondent No. 6 made complaints to the respondents regarding the selection of the petitioner. On the complaint of the respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR421]; 2001(1)MPHT481
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of a demand made by the respondent No. 3 (District Excise Officer, Khargone) asking the petitioner to pay entertainment tax at the enhanced monthly rate of Rs. 3,937/- in place of Rs. 1,687/- on the strength of an amendment made on 1-4-1991 in the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.2. Petitioner is having his V.C.R. Parlour in a Village-Gogawa in Tehsil Khargone in District West Nimad. The petitioner in his VCR Parlour (Premsukh Video House) was at all relevant time exhibiting films to public. Petitioner had taken licence for running and exhibiting films under the provisions of M.P. Cinema Regulation Act (Annexure P-l).This licence was being renewed from time to time as is clear from the endorsement made in the licence (Annexure P-l).3. Under Section 3 of M.P. Entertainmen...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP176; 2001(2)MPHT14
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the orders dated 9-8-1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Seoni, vide Annexure P-5 and P-6.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of screening of films through a VCR and projecting the films on a large screen by means of an electronic apparatus. The Video Parlour owned by the petitioner No. 1 is named as Neeraj Video Centre. The petitioner No. 1 has been granted licence bearing licence No. 1/94 to run the Video Parlour. The said licence is granted on annual basis and he had the licence till the year 1999. The petitioner No. 2 was given a licence bearing No. 7/VCR/Lic/99 for screening of films through VCR/VCP which was valid till the year 1999. These licenses are granted under the provisions of the M.P. Cine...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT222
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This revision is directed against the orders dated 19-7-99 and 24-7-99 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. The facts and the points oflaw involved in this revision as well as Criminal Revision Nos. 1205/99 and 1237/99 are of the same nature and therefore this order shall also govern the disposal of aforesaid two criminal revisions.2. The undisputed case of the prosecution is that on 15-11-95 the deceased Sushil Chand committed the murder of his wife Smt. Neelma Jain by means of knife because he suspected her to be of bad character and thereafter, he committed suicide by hanging himself. The deceased had left one suicide note-cum-letler dated 9-11-95 addressed to Superintendent of Police Sagar whereby he alleged that the applicant Vjjay and Sarla, father and mother of his wife deceased Neelma Jain were responsible for her illicit activities as they encouraged her to have clandastine relations with the applicants Mahcsh Kumar, Surya Kant Bhura, Ashok ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Maninder Kaur Vs. Manish Kumar Chourasia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC253
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J.1. Both these revisions are directed against the same impugned order dated 16th February, 2000 in Civil Suit No. 62-A of 1999 by IV Additional District Judge, Jabalpur and are, therefore, being disposed of together by this common order. Since the parties have inter-changed the position in both the above revisions, they would be mentioned in this order as petitioner/wife and respondent/husband.2. Undisputably, the petitioner/wife Smt. Maninder Kaur filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Act for short) against the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights. In the said application she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. It was averred in the said application that the respondent/husband carries on business in the name of Adlib Associates, which is a registered firm. It was also averred that he earns more than Rs. 25,00...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkishan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)20; 2001(5)MPHT81
1. Appellant being aggrieved by his conviction for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life by judgment dated 10th March, 1989, passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 88/86, has preferred this appeal.2. According to the prosecution, on 22-3-1985 at 8.30 p.m. Dhaniram was standing in his courtyard to take food, appellant who at the relevant time was a Naik in T.A Battalion and was living as tenant in the adjoining house came armed with gun and enquired as to why he has abused his daughter. At this, the deceased Dhaniram replied that he had not abused her at which appellant fired from his gun which hit on his right rib. As a result of the injury Dhaniram fell down. At that time, Purshottam (P.W. 5), brother of the deceased and Hukumchand were standing there and neighbours Pyarelal and Hemraj also came there. Appellant fled away from the place of incident. Thereafter, Dhaniram was taken to the hospital by his...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkishan Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2280
1. Appellant being aggrieved by his conviction for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life by judgment dated 10th March, 1989, passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 88/86, has preferred this appeal.2. According to the prosecution, on 22-3-1985 at 8.30 p.m. Dhaniram was standing in his courtyard to take food, appellant who at the relevant time was a Naik in T.A. Battalion and was living as tenant in the adjoining house came armed with gun and enquired as to why he has abused his daughter. At this, the deceased Dhaniram replied that he had not abused her at which appellant fired from his gun which hit on his right rib. As a result of the injury Dhaniram fell down. At that time, Purshottam (PW 5), brother of the deceased and Hukumchand were standing there and neighbours Pyarelal and Hemraj also came there. Appellant fled away from the place of incident. Thereafter, Dhaniram was taken to the hospital by his ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Sharma and ors. Vs. Nanak Ikon Stores and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC693
Shambhoo Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 1.7.1998 passed by VIIth M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 141/86.2. The claimants' case, in brief, was that on 9.2.1996 deceased Prema Sharma, the wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, was travelling in Maruti Car No. M.P. 09-N/0770, belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. They were coming from Onkareshwar to Indore. Near Indore, the driver Sachchanand drove this car in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a truck, as a result of which Prema Sharma and other occupants of the car sustained injuries. Prema Sharma died on the spot. The deceased was helping in the business of Computer and Typing carried on by appellant No. 1 and she was earning Rs 3,000/- per month. The appellants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/-. The respondents resisted the claim. Respondent No. 2, Insurance Company inter alia averred that the driver of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish and anr. Vs. Rajkumar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC68; 2002ACJ1124
Shambhoo Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 27.1.1998 passed by 1st M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 60 of 1995.2. The claimants' case was that on 31.1.95 while going on his Hero-Majestic along with Pannalal as pillion rider, respondent No. 2 came from the opposite direction driving truck No. CH 01 D-5088 belonging to the non-applicant No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his moped, as a result of which he sustained injuries and became permanently disabled. He filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 7,40,000. The respondents resisted the claim and inter alia pleaded that respondent No. 2 was not having a valid driving licence, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by non-applicant No. 2. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,18,000 with inte...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., Jabalpur Vs. Mohd. Abdul Wakeel and Anothe ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2441; 2001(3)MPHT124
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the Order dated 10-4-96 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni in an unregistered case.2. The applicant is a registered Finance Company. Its Head Office is at Madras. It has opened a Branch Office at 103/3, Shastri Bridge Road, Napier Town, Jabalpur.3. The applicant agreed to finance the purchase of Mahindra Commander Jeep, under a hire-purchase agreement dated 21-12-94 with the non-applicant No. 1 Mohd. Abdul Wakeel. The jeep aforesaid was purchased in the name of the applicant, at its order, as per invoice dated 21-12-94 issued by the dealer on payment of Rs. 2,30,649/-. The non-applicant had given his assent to the purchase of jeep on payment of initial sum of Rs. 60,449/- and the balance out of total sum calculated at that time likely to become due amounted to Rs. 3,02,559/- by the time the last instalment was paid. Thus, balance of Rs. 2,41,910/- ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »