Madhya Pradesh Court December 2000 Judgments
Dr. Narendrasingh Poonia Vs. Mahendrasingh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT470
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Dr. Poonia has been heard at length so also Shri Bagadia. In the fitness and for the purpose of assisting the Court on factual matters Shri Bagadia pointed out that respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6 have filed affidavits and denied the allegations made by petitioner Dr. Poonia against them.Dr. Poonia placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 67/97 (For Preliminary Hearing) Narinder Singh Poonia v. Mahendrasingh Sodha and others, which has been decided on 24-2-97 and submitted that when he appealed to the Supreme Court in view of Article 32 of Indian Constitution, Supreme Court observed in his favour and permitted petitioner Dr. Poonia to file a writ petition afresh in this High Court for the purpose of getting his grievance adjudicated in view of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. He submitted that in view of the said observations of the Supreme Court, Dr. Poonia is entitled now to make a prayer to this Court fo...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Dohre Vs. Mukesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC18
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J.1. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass : Appellant/claimant was travelling in Bus No. MP07F 0553 as second driver of the vehicle and at the relevant time, this vehicle was driven by respondent No. 3 Suman Singh Tomar. Respondent No. 3 by rash and negligent driving, dashed the vehicle against a truck which caused grievous injuries to appellant. The learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned award, allowed compensation of Rs. 42,000/- against which, present appeal has been filed for enhancement of award to the extent of Rs. 95,000/-.2. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that he completely lost the hearing power because of permanent disability caused due to damage of right ear. However, the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating medical evidence in right perspective. The learned Counsel for the respondents has contested the contention on the ground that in claim petition Under S...
Tag this Judgment!Primo Pick N. Pack Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT296(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a Limited Company having its Registered Office at 1346, Napier Town, Jabalpur. It is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of HDPE/PP Woven Sacks/Tapes/Fabrics. It is a medium scale unit having its factory at Plot No. A-3, Growth Centre, Maneri, Tahsil Niwas in the District of Mandla. The Company commenced its commercial production with effect from 21-1-1986. According to the petitioner the basic (raw materials) inputs used in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Tapes/Fabrics/Sacks in the HDPE/PP/LDPE granules which is an organic compound commonly known as plastic. The product manufactured by the Company is an article of plastic which is an excisable commodity classified under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985. Keeping in view the nature of product the petitioner-company represented to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise giving details of the product and requested him to classify the same under Chapter 39 for the purpose of payme...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Brijnarayan and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT377; 2001(2)MPLJ158
Fakhruddin, J. 1. The State/appellant has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offence under Sections 13 and 16 of the Excise Act, punishable under Sections 34, 36 and 37 of the said Act.2. It was alleged that during inspection by the officials of the Excise Department, on 13-9-92, they found that the respondents/accused without paying requisite excise fees, collected 400 bottles of liquors in the stock of the shop. The case was filed. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty on 20-11-92 on the date of framing of charge. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 15-12-1992. On 15-12-92 it was adjourned to 18-12-92. On 18-12-92, the case was adjourned as the witnesses could not be summoned. The summons were accordingly issued for the next date, i.e., 27-1-93 as reflected in the order-sheet. On 27-1-93, the prosecution witnesses were present, but the learned Magistrate could not examine them, as he was busy in other matter as mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Arora Vs. District Magistrate, Shahdol and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT24; 2001(2)MPLJ197
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of Certiorari for quashment of orders contained in Annexures P-13 to P-17.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Coal Trading and Coal Transportation under valid delivery orders issued by the authorities of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur. It is putforth that he deals in his own name and transports coals for various undertakings under valid delivery orders to various far off places throughout India. Copies of authority for Transport of coal by Shipra Industries, Shivam Coal Brigget Udoy, Tripti Industries and Adhunik Brigget Industry have been brought on record as Annexures P-3 to P-6. For transporting Transit Passes are issued by the Mining Officer, Shahdol. As per arrangement the coal is to be lifted from the Coal Mines thereafter to be transported to various far off places. It is setforth in the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Rimjha Vs. Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT333; 2001(2)MPLJ114
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The present litigation has a very sad story to narrate. The petitioner appeared in M.A. (Previous) Economics main examination as non-collegiate student conducted in the months of March-April, 1999. When the petitioner appeared in the examination he never did imagine that April would be cruelest month for him. The result of the examination was published on 29-7-2000. Tothe utter shock and surprise of the petitioner he found that he had secured zero in First Paper, 'Advanced Economics Theory'. As the petitioner had performed very well in the said paper and had fullest confidence that he would be securing high marks he applied for revaluation of the answer paper and as envisaged under the Rules governing the field deposited Rs. 200/- for the said purpose. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner had applied for revaluation within the prescribed period of time but as misfortune would have it the University did not show any response and the result of re...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Jaiswal and Co. and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT382
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 29th June, 2000 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in Criminal Revision No. 212/99 arising out of order dated 2-8-99 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 73/99.The applicants were found to have committed offence under Sections 34 and 39 of the M.P. Excise Act. 1915 (for short 'the Act') on 2-8-95. The prosecution was instituted by filing a complaint on 2-2-96.2. The applicants objected that under the provisions of Section 61 of the Act, the Trial Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 34 and 39 of the Act. The learned Trial Magistrate rejected that objection.3. In revision, the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the contention of the applicants that the Trial Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 39 of the Act for the reason t...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Smita Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT147
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner, a young girl in her teens, represented through her father, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to produce answer-books of Hindi, Mathematics, Science and Social-Science for suitable revaluation and further to grant compensation.2. Before I advert to the facts in detail, it is appropriate to refer to the proceedings on 1-32-2000. On 1-12-2000 this Court was apprised of the fact that revaluation was confined to two subjects, namely, Science and Mathematics. On a perusal of the answer-sheet of Science paper, it became perceptible that there was no manipulation and no error in retotalling. Considering the said aspect in proper perspective, the prayer for revaluation in the subject of Science was rejected. As far as the subject of Mathematics was concerned, Mr. Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that some of the answers are correct, as per the model an...
Tag this Judgment!Ameen and Another Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1947; 2001(2)MPHT144
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 22-11-2000 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Session Trial No. 701/2000.2. The learned Session Judge has framed two charges against the petitioners. One against under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and the another under Section 329 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel states that the petitioners are not aggrieved by framing the charges under Section 365 of the IPC but argued that there is no material for framing a charge under Section 329 of the IPC.3. The facts of this case as per charge sheet are that the petitionersway laid the complainant Deepak Rajput in front of Saint Aloysius School Gate and slopped him. Then they brought him near Railway Colony, Jabalpur on the point of knife. He was given beating and was physically assaulted. They kept confined him in Madar Tekri and in the village Shobhapur. The offence w...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Kumar Richariya Vs. Smt. Madhu Richariya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC187
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J. 1. By the impugned order, application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C., for setting aside the decree of divorce granted in Civil Suit No. 161-A/96, was allowed and the said suit was directed to be heard bi parte.2. The petitioner/husband had filed a petition registered as Civil Suit No. 161-A/96 against the respondent/wife. Service report of summons of the said petition on the respondent /wife indicated that she refused to take summons. The Trial Court after recording evidence led by the petitioner/husband passed an ex parte judgment and decree of divorce.3. The respondent/wife filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree making an averment that the summons was never tendered to him, and that she never refused to accept the same.4. The learned Trial Court after recording evidence on the said application found that the averments made by the respondent/wife that the summons was never tendered to her and tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »