Madhya Pradesh Court July 2000 Judgments
Rajju and Others Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT118
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. From the order passed by the learned Court below, it appears that the applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 81/2000 registered at Police Station, Badamalhera for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294, 323, 324, 325 and 506 II, IPC. From the order it also appears that on the date when the application was rejected the applicants remained in jail for almost about 20 days. The learned Court below has rejected the application mainly on the ground that three earlier applications were already rejected and as there was no new ground the application under consideration could not be allowed.2. Barring Section 506 II, IPC all other Sections are bailable. It is most unfortunate that for a charge punishable under Section 506 II, IPC the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application on the ground that changed circumstances were wanting in the case. Let learned Sessions Judge be reminded the provisions of law that if a particular o...
Tag this Judgment!Narayansingh and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT175
ORDERShambhoo Singh, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of Cr. A. No. 623/94 and Cr. A. No. 78/95.2. Accused persons Narayansingh & Badrilal have filed Cr. A. No. 623/94 against the judgment & order dated 30-8-94 passed by 1st A.S.J. Shajapur in S.T. No. 89/91 whereby the appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 302/34, 324/34 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine 3 years R.I. each under Section 302/34, IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine 5 months R.I. on each count under Sections 324/34 and 323/34, IPC and State has filed Cr.A. No. 78/95 against the acquittal of accused persons Mansingh, Roopsingh, Narayansingh, Ladsingh, Shankerlal, Bapulal, Sarjusingh & Siddhulal.3. The prosecution case, in brief, was that there arose some dispute about theft of Tuwar between the appellants' party and the complainant party. Members of both parties are resi...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT124
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed on 16-11-99 by the Addl Sessions Judge, Dhar by which the learned A.S.J. has held that Shri R.P. Shukla cannot prosecute this case as a Special Public Prosecutor but he can only assist to the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor under the provisions of Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case are that a S.T. No. 239/97, State of M.P. V. Yogendra @ Yogesh and Ors., is pending before the I A.S.J., Dhar. In this case Public Prosecutor and Addl. Public Prosecutor were prosecuting the sessions trial on behalf of the State upto 15-10-97. On 25-11-97 Shri R.P. Shukla, Advocate filed an application under Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. before the A.S.J. and prayed that he be allowed to appear and assist Shri P.C. Jain, Addl. Public Prosecutor in the Sessions Trial because the Addl. Public Prosecutor is not prosecuting the case properly an...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Lal Tamrakar and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT435
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Petitioner P.L. Tamrakar filed the petition before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur seeking promotion to the post of Agricultural Development Officer from the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer. This petition was filed in 1993 and the return was filed by State on 5-3-1999. Unfortunately, petitioner died on 23-6-1995. Purushottam Lal Tamrakar and Durgesh Tamrakar are legal heirs of P.L. Tamrakar being his sons. They approached the Tribunal for substitution so that they could prosecute the case further. This application has been dismissed by the Tribunal through order dated 3-4-2000 (Annexure P-4) holding that O.A. No. 676/93 stood abated due to the expiry of the applicant. Further, the substitution application should have been filed within a period of 90 days. The order has been assailed through writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. Shri P. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsai Kaivart and ors. Vs. Shankar Viswas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ327
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against award of 7th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, dated 24.11.1998 in Claim Case No. 35 of 1998 whereby claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 76,500 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.2. Accident took place on 20.12.1996 when the jeep No. MP 23-D 1595 owned by respondent No. 1 Shankar Viswas and driven by respondent No. 2 Ba.bban Viswas struck against stationary truck. Allegation is that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the driver as a result of which Dhanabai and her son Punendra Kumar alias Puren Kumar died at the spot. The matter was reported to the police which registered case for offences under Sections 279/337/304A, Indian Penal Code. Claimants are husband and children of the deceased.3. It is submitted that Dhanabai was 31 years old and was maintaining good health. But for this accident, she could live for about ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR610(MP)
1. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for applicant (Revenue), and Shri Anand Soni with Shri R. C. Mehra, learned counsel for non-applicant, assessee.2. This is an application made by the Revenue, praying for review of the order dated March 6, 1996, passed by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. C. No. 18 of 1992, on a reference made under, Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The question of law referred to this court for answer was as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation in view of Section 153(2) when the return was filed in response to a notice under Section 148 served on September 29, 1983 ?'4. While answering the aforesaid question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, this court in para. 4 of the order referred to Sub-section (2) of Section 153 of the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Bharosilal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT197; 2000(3)MPLJ489
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. Perused the record.3. The plaintiff-applicant had filed a suit on 27-6-1990 claiming a decree declaring him to be the owner in possession of the property in dispute. He had also prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the property in the suit.4. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession over the property in dispute.5. The trial Court vide its order dated 11-7-1991 came to the conclusion that the possession of the plaintiff was as that of a trespasser and on the strength of such an unauthorised possession he was not entitled to get any ad interim injunction, which if granted will result in protecting the unauthorised possess...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Prasad Umraiya Vs. Balwant Singh Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT200
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor/applicant as well as the learned counsel representing the decree-holder/respondent and carefully perused the record.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the executing Court rejecting his objections filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, the judgment-debtor/tenant, the present applicant, challenging the executability of the decree for his eviction from the premises in dispute, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the aforesaid order and for declaring the decree passed by the Civil Court to be a nullity and inexecutable and further praying for rejecting the application for execution of the decree.3. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass : The decree passed in the suit giving rise to the execution in question had been filed on the ground of default envisaged under Section 12 (1) (...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan and ors. Vs. Harbagas Ahirwar (Dead) Through His L.Rs. Smt. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT509
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This order shall dispose of I.A. No. 5969/98 for substitution of legal representatives of Layachibai arrayed as respondent No. 3, I.A. No. 8135/98 for setting aside abatement, I.A. No. 5970/98 for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement. There are other interlocutory applications. Decision on those applications shall be necessary only if this Court comes to the conclusion that the appeal did not abate as a whole.2. It is necessary to express the relevant facts in a nutshell. Harbagas Ahirwar obtained a decree against Ram Kishan, Ram Kripal, Hari Bai, Layachi Bai (Hari Bai and Layachi Bai are legal representatives of Hajarilal Ahirwar, the defendant No. 3) and Om Prakash in the following terms :--It was declared that:-- (i) the plaintiff was the sole owner of House No. 178 situate at Shivaji Ward, Kandeli (Narsinghpur).(ii) Consequently it was decreed that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 shall hand over the possession of the suit house...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Dubey and Another Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1306; 2001(1)MPHT213
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. Anticipating arrest in connection with Crime No. 31/2000 registered at P.S. Umaria (Jabalpur) for offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the applicants have filed this petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C.2. It appears that by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 Section 10A of the original Act of 1955 was amended and after the word 'Cognizable', the words 'and non-bailable' were introduced. The said Act of 1981 was to remain in force for a period of five years only from the date of commencement of 1981 Act. Thereafter by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Continuance Act, 1987 Para 2 of the preamble of 1981 to the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 was amended and in place of five years period of 10 years was substituted. Thereafter by Third Amendment, the said period of continuance was made for fifteen years. Afterexpiry of fifteen years no amendment Act was brought into force b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »