Madhya Pradesh Court May 2000 Judgments
Pradeep Mittal Vs. Chandrabhan Singh Raghuvanshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT121; 2000(3)MPLJ72
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This reference under Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been made by the Judicial Magistrate First class, Dabra (Gwalior) for drawing contempt proceedings against Chandrabhan Singh, Station House Officer, Billuoa at present posted as Sub-Inspector Murar, District Gwalior.2. The facts in nut-shell are that on 15-4-98 one Matadeen made an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class that the Station House Officer of Police Station, Billuoa within the jurisdiction of the Court had wrongly detained his two sons namely; Mahesh and Suresh for more than seven days. A report was called from the S.H.O. on 16-4-98. Respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi submitted to the Court that Mahesh and Suresh were not kept in detention nor were in the lock up of the said police station. Relying upon the affidavit of Matadeen, the said Judicial Magistrate First Class, issued a search warrant. The said search warrant was given to Shri Anil Parsowal, Advocate for...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT435
ORDERShambhoo Singh, J.1. The petitioner/accused was convicted by J.M.F.C. Indore on 29-4-99 in Criminal Case No. 2756/98 for offence under Sections 468 and 420, IPC, and sentenced to three years R.I. and to pay fine also. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 114/99, against the judgment and Order passed by the J.M.F.C. The petitioner made an application under Sections 311 and 391, Cr.P.C. praying that due to his poor financial condition he could not engage a lawyer in trial Court, therefore, three prosecution witnesses Gopal Solanki (P.W. 2), Shrikrishan (P.W. 5) and Mahendra Bai (P.W. 9), who were important witnesses, and could not be cross-examined by the petitioner be ordered to be summoned for cross-examination. The learned Appellate Judge dismissed this application observing that if the appellant was suffering from poverty and was not in a position to engage a lawyer, he could pray to the trial Judge to provide him an Advocate at the State cost and as he did not make an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Nehru @ Jawahar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT331
A.K. Mishra, J.1. The appellant, having been convicted under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3 months, has preferred present appeal before this Court.2. Briefly stated prosecution case is that prosecutrix Shatrupabai daughter of Chetanbai had come in the morning of June 10th, 1988 at Rajnandgaon along with her mother to sell bundles of fuel wood. When they were sitting at a place with the bundles of fuel wood, accused approached them and settled each bundles for Rs. 10/-. He thereafter asked both (mother and daughter) to leave the bundles at his residence. Both, therefore, picked up the bundles on their head and proceeded with the accused. After some distance, accused asked Shatrupabai to sit there and he proceeded along with her mother Mst. Chetanbai. Leaving Chetanbai at some distance he again returned to Shatrupabai, took her in a school building and in a room there he committed forcible sexua...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Mujahid Ali and Another Vs. Gyarsi Lal and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT59
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-9-99 in Civil Suit No. 66-A/99 by VIIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal, allowing the application of plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and granting temporary injunction against the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 not to interfere in the possession of the suit land of plaintiff/respondent.2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is admittedly the Patta holder of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 8/2 area 5 acres situated at Village Mungalia, Patwari Halka No. 12, Tahsil Hujur, District Bhopal. The defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 9-9-98 from appellant/defendant No. 2.3. The defendant/appellant No. 2 had averred that he had obtained a 'Muktarnama' on-1-4-97 from plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and thereafter an agreement to sale was got executed. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 denied to have executed the said documents.4. The plaintiff/re...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Gudakhu Factory Vs. Avinash Gudakhu Factory
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: AIR2000MP305
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 14th December, 1999 in Civil Suit No. 32-A/1999 by District Judge, Ralgarh, whereby the plaintiff/appellant's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w. Section 151 of the C.P.C., marked as I.A. No. 1, was dismissed.2. Undisputably, the plaintiff/appellant is a manufacturer of 'Gudakhu', which is being used as toothpaste. It carries on business in the name and style of 'Laxmi Gudakhu Factory' and sells its product under the registered trade-mark 'Saraswati Chhap Gudakhu'. The label of the said product is at the top of 'Annexure-C', which is marked as '1' for the purpose of convenience. The above trade-mark was registered with the Registrar of Trade Mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short) on 17-4-1967. It is also not in dispute that the registration as above has been renewed by the plaintiff/ appellant, from time to time, and is still in force. Subseque...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Singh Thakur Vs. Smt. Bharti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP1; II(2000)DMC368; 2000(3)MPHT105; 2000(3)MPLJ439
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 21-3-97, whereby the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity was dismissed.2. The facts not in dispute are that the parties were married on 4-5-94 in the Arya Samaj, Raipur. However, immediately after the marriage the parties separated and are living apart. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/wife was married earlier and was divorced by her first husband.3. The petitioner/appellant filed the application under Section 12 of the Act, praying for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. It was averred that, though the respondent was married and divorced earlier, yet she did not mention about the material fact of her earlier marriage. In view of above suppression of fact and practising fraud on the appellant, the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kirti Mishra Vs. Smt. Krishna Mishra and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC512; 2001(2)MPHT119
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed for transfer of Civil Suit No. 168-A/95, pending before Second Civil Judge Class-I, Khandwa.2. Facts leading to the present petition in brief are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 claim to be the wives of deceased Ravi Narayan Mishra. Ravi Narayan Mishra was in service in the Police Department and died in a road accident in 1993 at Sehore. The respondent No. 1 filed an application before Superintendent of Police, Sehore, praying that the pensionary benefits, provident fund, gratuity etc., be paid to her consequent to the death of her husband Ravi Narayan Mishra. The Superintendent of Police, Sehore, however, directed the respondent No. 1 to obtain a succession certificate with regard to the above claims. The respondent No. 1 Smt. Krishna Mishrathereafter filed an application for grant of succession certificate before District Judge, Sehore. The said application was resisted by t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sweta and Another Vs. Dharma Chand and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP23; 2001(2)MPHT274
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) is directed against the order dated 9-7-1998 in Misc. Civil Suit No. 30/1998 by I Additional DistrictJudge, Sagar, appointing respondent No. 1 Dharam Chand to be the guardian of the person and properly of minor Palak.2. Facts not in dispute are that the minor Palak is the daughter of deceased Ashok Kumar Jain and respondent No. 2 Smt. Recta. Ashok Kumar Jain was the elder brother of appellant No. 2 Vijay Kumar Jain. Appellant No. 1 is the wile of appellant No. 2. Respondent No. 1 Dharamchand is the father of Recta and thus the maternal grand-father (Nana) of minor Palak. Ashok Kumar Jain, the father of minor Patak met with an unfortunate death in a motor accident on 20-11 -1992. Minor Palak was born on 9-9-1989 and was thus aged about 3 years at the time of death of her father Ashok Kumar Jain. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Reeta has remarried...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar @ Chhota Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC444
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant Ramkumar has been convicted under Sections 498A and 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and three years respectively. He has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the first offence and Rs. 5,000/- for the second offence.2. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides and after careful scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences is not sustainable. Bundabai (P.W. 2) is wife of the appellant. She has three children from him. The marriage took place about 14 years ago. She has deposed that she was sleeping and at about 1 a.m. the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire as he suspected her fidelity. She reported the matter to the police after six months of the incident. The accused was getting her burn injuries treated by a doctor. Ralli (P.W. 3) is her father. He has deposed that his daughter Bundabai (P.W. 2) did not...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmu Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT398
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant-Dharmu has been convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho tropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and after careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is well merited. T.S. Thakur (P.W. 1) was the A.S.I. at Bastar Chouki. He has deposed that on 14-1-1999 he was on duty in the weekly market and he saw accused Dharmu carrying two bags in a 'Kavar'. He asked the accused about the contents of the bags and he told him that there is Ganja in the two bags. He served the notice (Ex. P-3) on him apprising him of his right to be searched by a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused opted to be searched by him. He searched the bags and found Ganja therein. It was weighed. There w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »