Madhya Pradesh Court May 2000 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.
Hafiz Khan and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT439
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellants are hereby assailing correctness propriety and legality of the judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora in the matter of Sessions Trial No. 98/89.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6-7-89 deceased was proceeding by riding on motor-cycle at about 11 or 11.15 P.M. near Mandi Samiti and at that time as per allegation of the prosecution, the appellants came there by boarding in a Jeep. The appellants gave a dash to the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased and in the result the deceased fell. All the appellants alighted from the said Jeep being armed with lethal weapons and started assaulting deceased. Deceased sustained injuries which resulted in his death. After necessary investigation, the appellants have been put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, who after recording evidence and appreciating it passed the Order of conviction and sentence, convicting the appellants for convicting the offence ...
Yashpal Singh Thakur Vs. Smt. Anjana Rajput
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT192
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the civil revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC') the husband-petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 15-1-2000 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Case No. 368-A of 1999 by which he has granted a sum of Rs. 2500/- towards litigation expenses to the non-applicant/wife and Rs. 600/- towards monthly maintenance allowance to the child, namely, Prithwiraj.2. The facts which have been unfolded are that the petitioner-husband filed an application under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of his marriage with the non-applicant on the ground of adultery as well as mental cruelty. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 30th May, 1996 at Jabalpur according to Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner was working as a Private Secretary in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at...
Dr. Santosh Kumar Dey (Decd.) Through Lr Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(MP)386
ORDERN. K. Jain, J.The petitioner who is an assessee both under the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act, by the petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question two notices both dated 18-3-1988 (vide Annexures P/11 and P/12) issued by respondent. The Income Tax Officer M-Ward, Circle-I, Indore, under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, (as it stood before the amendment of 1987), calling upon the petitioner to submit fresh return of his income for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. At the outset it may be noted that the practice of this court has been not to interfere in such matters at the stage of issuance of notices and leave the aggrieved party first to answer such notices and exhaust alternative remedies provided under the ordinary law before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226/227. However, in the instance case, it is noticed that the present petition stands admitted way back in 1988 and the petitioner has chal...
Rajkumar Shivhare Vs. Anand Kumar Tiwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000MP313; 2000(4)MPHT252; 2000(3)MPLJ391
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. As the question of law involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Mungabai and Rajeshwart (petitioner and respondent No. 1 respectively in W.P. No. 2783/2000) as also Rajkumar Shivhare and Anand Kumar Tiwari (petitioner and respondent No. 1 respectively in W.P. No. 2782/2000) were elected as members of Janpad Panchayat, Lakhnadon. Mungabai and Rajeshwari were candidates for the office of President of Janpad Panchayat, in which Mungabai has been declared elected. Rajeswari challenged the election of Mungabai as President of the Janpad Panchayat by way of an election petition filed under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Similarly Rajkumar and Anand Tiwari contested the election of the office of Vice President of the Janpad Panchayat in which Rajkumar has been declared elected. AnandTiwari questioning the election o...
M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Hariram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR750]; (2002)IVLLJ817MP; 2000(4)MPHT65
S.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. The Petitioner M.P. Electricity Board has filed Writ Petition No. 4604 of 1998 against the order dated June 6, 1998 (Annexure-P/1) of the Industrial Court, Bhopal in Appeal No. 130/M.P.I.R./1997, by which the appeal of respondent Hari Ram has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to reinstate him in service with back-wages, Writ Petition No. 4606 of 1998 against the order dated June 6, 1998 of the Industrial Court (Annexure-P/1) in Appeal No. 132/M.P.I.R./1997, Writ Petition No. 4607 of 1998 against the order dated June 6, 1998 (Annexure-P/1) of the Industrial Court in Appeal No. 131 /M.P.I.R./1997 and Writ Petition No. 4608 of 1998 against the order dated June 6, 1998 (Annexure-P/1) of the Industrial Court in Appeal No. 129/M.P.I.R./1997 for reinstatement of, respondents Toran Singh, Deen Dayal, Karan Singh. Respondent Hari Ram, Toran Singh, Deen Dayal and Karan Singh have also filed separate Writ Petitions W. P. Nos. 438 of 1999, 435 of 1999, 434 o...
Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC67
S.P. Khare, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A and 306, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorou imprisonment for two years and seven years respectively. They have also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the first offence and Rs. 1,000/- each for the second offence.2. Deceased Saraswati Bai was wife of Manrakhan (P.W. 6). Accused Ramesh is his brother. Accused Ramwati is wife of Ramesh. Accused Sushila Bai is wife of another brother of Manrakhan (P.W. 6). Accused Mayaram and Bhag Bai are his parents. Accused Beniram is father of Ramwati.3. A gruesome incident took place in the house of Saraswati Bai in village Chhatod on 18.2.1998 at 9.00 p.m. Not only she set herself on fire but at the same time she poured kerosene on her three children and set them ablaze. All the four have died. Saraswati Bai was admitted in the Mission Hospital at Tilda on 18.2.1998. Her dying declaration was recorded by Baleshwar Ram (P.W. 32) on 19.2.1998 at 1.10 a.m., that is Ex....
Ashok and anr. Vs. Ramsewak and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT393
ORDERMaithli Sharan, J.1. The brief relevant facts of the case leading to the filing of this revision petition are thus : The petitioners lodged the first information report against the non-petitioners No. 1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 307 and 324/34, I.P.C., concerning the incident that took place on 29-1-88. The Police conducted investigation in the case and thereafter charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the concerning Magistrate wherefrom the case was committed to the Court of Session. On the basis of the prima facie facts and evidence available on record the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 307, I.P.C., was made out and, therefore, he remanded the case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the trial of the non-petitioners No. 1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 326, 324 & 201, read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The prosecution adduced evidence in the Court of the learned trial Magistrate...
Suresh Chandra Sharma and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT12; 2000(2)MPLJ530
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Whether or not a Chief Municipal Officer holds a Civil post and is an employee of the State Government is the short question referred to us in the above petitions in view of the apparent conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court, viz., Jagmohanlal Bajpai v. State of M.P. and Ors. [1977 (1) SLR 746] holding that the Chief Municipal Officer does not hold a Civil post and is not an employee of the State Government and C.P. Kulshrestra (Dr.) v. Government of M.P. (1991 JLJ 198), holding to the contrary.2. We need not deal in detail with the facts leading to reference of the case to the Full Bench for resolving the conflict between the two decisions. Suresh Chandra Sharma, the petitioner in W.P. No. 4829 of 1997 has challenged the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior, by which his application before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that although his services were under the control of the State Government, since h...
Baboo Lal Shivhare Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT35
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. Perused the record.3. The contesting parties have exchanged their affidavits and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.4. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order dated 24-2-2000 issued by the Commissioner (Ayukt), Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, whereunder cancelling the F.L. 2 licence granted in his favour for the year 1999-2000 for the remaining part of the year, it had been directed that the application seeking renewal of the said licence was to be kept pending till the disposal of the criminal case, against him initiated under the Excise Act.5. It may be noticed that the Commissioner (Ayukt), Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior had purported to act upon the direction issued by the Collector contained in the letter dated 10-1-2000 with a view to implement the same.6. The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the direction cont...
Charansingh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT296
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Charansingh, father of the detenu Rinkusingh by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the correctness, validity and propriety of the Order No. 5/NSA/99 dated 17-8-99 passed by respondent No. 3-District Magistrate, Katni and the intimation dated 18-8-99 sent by the Station House Officer, Police Station Madhavnagar, whereunder petitioner's son Rinkusingh has been directed to be detained and kept in Central Jail, Jabalpur under Section 3, sub-section (2) of the National Security Act, 1980.2. According to the petitioner his son Rinkusingh (hereinafter referred as detenu) is a peace loving citizen and is not involved in criminal activities nor is menace to the public safety, public order and tranquillity, therefore, his detention under the orders impugned is bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be quashed.3. From the original records and the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition is appears th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »