Madhya Pradesh Court January 2001 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.
Yograj @ Khanjar Wankhede Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2001MP207; 2001(3)MPHT67; 2001(2)MPLJ135
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 5-8-2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balaghat-cum-Specified Officer in Revenue Case No. 5-A of 1999-2000.2. The facts as have been unfurled are that the petitioner was elected Sarpanch from Seoni Khurd Gram Panchayat. The election was held on 28-1-2000 and counting of votes was done on the same day. The petitioner secured 170 votes from polling booth No. 81 and 72 votes from polling booth No. 82. In toto the petitioner secured 242 votes. The respondent No. 4 challenged the election of the petitioner in election petition under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balaghat. It was urged in the election petition that due to electricity failure the counting of voles was not done properly, and hence, there should be rec...
Shanti Devi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC417
Arun Mishra, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred by Smt. Shanti Devi aggrieved by her conviction under Section 307, I.P.C. She has been sentenced to three years' R.I.2. A quarrel took place between the husband and wife. Appellant is the wife. It appears that the appellant-wife was beaten and suffered injuries at the hands of the husband as is apparent from the injury reports Exhibits P-4 of wife and P-5 of injured husband. Appellant Smt. Shanti Devi is the wife of injured Dharamdeo. According to the prosecution case, altercation took place between husband and wife on 15.11.1987 in the night at 2 a.m. at Govindpura, Bhopal. Husband and wife both used to excuse each other of bad character. A divorce case was filed in which a compromise was entered into. However, differences continued even after they started living together. Dharamdeo's assurance of good behaviour proved futile. Incident of beating took place on two occasions. The prosecution alleges that the appellant-Shanti Devi,...
Kashi Prasad Vs. Banshidhar and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001MP185; 2001(1)MPHT381; 2001(2)MPLJ513
R.B. Dixit, J. 1. Appellant/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit No. 105-A/91, New No. 50-A/94, in the Court of Ist Civil Judge, Class II, Morena for declaration, permanent injunction, mesne profit and possession to the effect that he was by virtue of temporary partition, already in possession of Survey No. 522 situated in Village Imliya. The case of respondents/defendants was that this portion of land or the share of plaintiff, was surrendered to them and thus, they were in exclusive possession of the entire land and became it's absolute owner.2. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 2-3-1995, partly decreed the suit to the extent of 1/7th share and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per annum and also ordered for delivery of possession. However, in First Civil Appeal No. 102-A/98 by the impugned judgment, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit of plaintiff, against which, this second appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of ...
Khushal Chand Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001MP187; 2001(3)MPHT174
ORDERShri S.S. Jha, J. 1. Petitioner was served with a notice under Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'), specifying therein that the petitioner is in an unauthorised occupation of a public premises. It was specifically mentioned that the house No. 34-D is under the control of Public Works Department of the State Government. After issuance of show-cause notice, the petitioner has shown the cause and claimed that he is not in an unauthorised occupation of the premises. He raised a dispute and submitted that he is the owner of the property. He has submitted his evidence and, on examination of evidence the Competent Authority found that the Public Works Department has not been able to demonstrate its title over the disputed house and dropped the proceedings.2. The house was claimed to be the property under the control of Public Works Department. The petitioner had filed a sale-deed dated 22-2-1958 to demonstra...
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Transport Appellate Tr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC168; AIR2001MP209; 2001(3)MPHT349
ORDERS.S. Jha, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the grant of regular stage carriage permit to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the route between Morena to Shankarpura via Madiya-kheda, Babu Ka Pura, Kheda, Badagaon Dimni, Ratiram Ka Pura, Umariya Pura, Ralhod Ka Pura, Baba Ki Tekri, Badfara, Ambah, Tharapalai Ka Tal, Pachpheda.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after amendment in Motor Vehicles Act, new Section 68(3)(ca) has been introduced, which provides for formulation of routes by Government for plying stage carriages. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, in the absence of formula-tion of routes for plying stage carriages no permit could be granted by Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to formulate routes for plying stage carriages. In support of his contentionlearned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Mithlesh Rani v. State Transport App...
Kalyansingh and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT500; 2001(3)MPLJ480
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Sanjay Jain is present in person. All of them are heard. Shri Sanjay Jain has been heard who narrated that when the witness P.W. 4 Ramkumar was being examined and cross-examined, he was present in the court hall alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan. He submitted that both Shri M.S. Chouhan and Shri Sanjay Jain happened to be the juniors working with Shri P.K. Shukla and when the said order was passed, Shri P.K. Shukla had come in the court hall and had taken the charge of the said sessions case on behalf of the petitioners. Shri P.K. Shukla who happens to be an advocate of standing of 30 years practice at Bar explained the situation by making the submissions which can be quoted as mentioned in paragraph hereunder :-2. Shri P.K. Shukla submitted that he was defending the petitioners at the relevant time in the court of 13th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, Shri A.M. Saxena on 21-4-98. He submitted that when the prosecution witness P.W. 4 Ramkumar was being cross-examined...
Smt. Prema Agarwal and Others Vs. Om Prakash Gautam and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT408
ORDERD.B. Dixit, J.1. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal He in a narrow compass : Plaintiffs had instituted a Civil Suit No. 464-A/1991 against the respondents-defendants for eviction and mesne profits of the suit shop which was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1997 of Second Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior. Respondents preferred a Civil Appeal No. 24/97 which was decided by judgment and decree dated 13-3-1998 by 8th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, which was partly allowed only to the extent of reducing the rate of mesne profits; against which this second appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law : (1) 'Whether plaintiff/landlord is entitled to mesne profits from the date of filing of suit at a rate higher than the contractual rate of rentor he is entitled to get mesne profits from the date of decree for eviction ?' (2) 'Whether for granting decree for mesne profits the Court s...
Jai Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2278; 2001(3)MPHT18; 2001(2)MPLJ484
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Jai Singh aggrieved by his conviction under Section 376, IPC and sentence of 7 years' R.I.2. Prosecution case is that the accused/appellant had obtained the employment for Ku. Sangeeta (P.W. 4) as a main- servant in the house of Mst. Rukmani (P.W. 2). On 10-6-88 at about 7 p.m. the accused/appellant went to the house Mst. Rukmani (P.W. 2) and asked Ku. Sangeeta (P.W. 4) whether she would go back to her house. The prosecutrix Ku. Sangeeta (P.W. 4) accompanied him on his bicycle. The accused took her towards the village tank. When enquired he told her that after visiting the village-tank, he would leave her to her house. On reaching near the tank, the accused/appellant offered her to sit near the tank for conversation. On refusal, the accused caught of her and fell her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix received injuries on her right hand and burning sensation in her ...
LupIn Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: [2006]143STC602(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order rendered by the Commissioner of Sales Tax dated August 2, 2000, (annexure P10) under Section 68 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994. Facts in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of the writ and which lie in a narrow compass need mention infra.2. Petitioner is a public limited company registered as such under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It claims to be engaged in the business of manufacture of various drugs which according to the petitioner are basic drugs used in manufacture of other medicines. It has its manufacturing units at Mandideep in district Raisen. The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the State Sales Tax Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.3. The State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 17 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (for short called 'the Act') has issu...
J. Enterprises Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC443(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents (sales tax authorities) in cancelling the registration certificate granted to the petitioner and also claim consequential reliefs. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention infra.2. The petitioner is a dealer carrying on business of manufacture and sale of wooden articles under the State Sales Tax as also Central Sales Tax Acts. It appears that sales tax authorities conducted raid in petitioner's factory. In this raid proceedings, the authorities were able to collect several documents/materials which was either not accounted for or was not tax paid. This gave rise to issuance of two show cause notices dated October 1, 1992 (annexure P8) by Sales Tax Officer. By this notice, it was said that as to why the registration certificate granted under the State Sales Tax as also Central Sales Tax Acts ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »