Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Loknath @ Loku Vs. Mohan and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPLJ6
ORDERS.S. Saraf, J. 1. Heard.2. This is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C, against the order dated 27-6-1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir whereby the application regarding the framing of charge concerning the incident of the next day has been rejected.3. The facts giving rise to this petition are these : The police of Police Station, Janjgir filed a charge-sheet against the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 for the offence under Sections 148 and 307/149, IPC. It is alleged that the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 inflicted injuries to several persons including Loknath, Bhagirath and Mayaram. They were admitted in the hospital. It was the incident of 10-7-1992. The nextday i.e. on 11-7-1992 Bhairo and Dhansai were taking food to the hospital. When they were on the way to the hospital, they were assaulted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 12. Bhairo had received serious injuries on his person. The matter was again reported to the concerned police. Bh...
Ku. Ritubala Soni Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP57; 2001(3)MPHT11
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. I begin this order with this perfectory note. Framers of the Constitution, while conferring jurisdiction to this Court, to issue prerogative writs and power of superintendence, in their wildest dream would not have thought that a citizen of this country has to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for getting the mark-sheet corrected. Bulk of the time of the Courts are wasted on such avoidable litigation and unless this is curtailed, the complain of 'delayed justice' and 'pendency' cannot be overcome, notwithstanding herculean efforts by the Judges and increase of number of Judges.2. Circumstances has compelled this child, who has just entered in her teen; to approach this Court inter alia praying that the respondents be directed to correct her mark-sheet. Petitioner appeared in this Primary School Certificate Examination held by respondent No. 2 in the year 1998. She was provided with the mark-...
Mohd. Ismil Khan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT401
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard.2. Shri Kutumbale submitted that once the execution proceeding has been filed and that has been made over to Collector to effect the partition, Civil Court becomes functus officio and therefore, Civil Judge Class I, Dhar did not have the jurisdiction to pass the order which has been passed by him on 3-1-2000. Shri Khan submitted that the documents were lost, the file was lost, it was not traceable and in view of that new execution application has been filed by opponent No. 1. He submitted that if at all the revision-petitioner was aggrieved of the action taken by the learned Civil Judge Class I, Dhar he should have challenged the order which was passed by that Court on 3-1-2000. He submitted that in view of the said circumstances, the Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed and it be dismissed.3. Mrs. Chaphekar submitted that the State is a formal party and did not make any submission.4. After reading the order which has been passed by the Civil Judge Cl...
S.P. Anand Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT460
ORDER1. All of them have been heard.2. In this petition the petitioner has written the name of Chief Minister of M.P. State, Shri Digvijay Singh and has impleaded him as party. So also he has written the name of Mayor Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya; as well as name of Ex-Mayor has been mentioned in this petition and these two mayors have been impleaded as parties in the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL).3. Shri D.D. Vyas, A.A.G. raised objection at initial stage that the petitioner should be directed to delete the name of Chief Minister because when State of M.P. is party, it is not necessary that Chief Minister should be impleaded as party in this PIL and that too with his name. He pointed out that there are no personal allegations against the Chief Minister.4. Shri Z.A. Khan, submitted that the name of present Mayor Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya also needs to be deleted from the petition. He also submitted that Mayor, Indore Municipal Corporation is not necessary party in this PIL. He ...
Suraj Pal and ors. Vs. Mandir Mahadeoji and Ram Janki and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT259
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants-applicants as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiff-respondent.2. Perused the record.3. The suit giving rise to this revision had been filed by 'Mandir Mahadeoji & Ram Janki, Village Pur, through Pujari Kailash Narayan' against four defendants which included the present applicant No. 1, who had been impleaded as defendant No. 1, the present applicant No. 2, who had been impleaded as defendant No. 2 and the present applicants Nos. 3 to 8, who are the heirs and legal representatives of Chhotelal, who had been impleaded as defendant No. 3.4. The aforesaid suit had been filed seeking a decree of mandatory injunction for the demolition of the alleged unauthorised constructions and parnala in dispute. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the land in dispute and ...
Bapurao Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(MP)377
ORDERN. K. Jain, J.By this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Bapurao, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), calls in question the two orders (Annexures 'B' and 'C') made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, purporting to act under the provisions of section 132 of the Act.2. Pursuant to a warrant of authorisation issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Pune, the respondent No. 1-Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) purporting to act under sections 132(1) of the Act, conducted search at the residential premises of the petitioner situated at 47, Gulmohar Colony, Indore, on 19-3-1990, and 20-3-1990 (vide Panchnama Annexure `A'). Respondent No. 1 was of the view that undisclosed investment has been made in certain immovable properties as enumerated in the order Annexure-B and since it was not practical or feasible to take possession of those properties, he passed prohibitory order Annexure-B under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›