Madhya Pradesh Court November 2001 Judgments
Sitaram Vs. Mansha Ram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT111
P.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (to be called as 'Code' only).2. Mansha Ram (R-l).on 30-9-77 filed a suit for declaration that sale-deed dated 27-6-73 was sham and fictitious, for confirmation of his possession and for permanent injunction. Admittedly the appellant is a moneylender. A sale-deed was executed by Mansha Ram (R-l) for 1.5 acre of land out of Khasra No. 207, area 3.404 hectare (8.48 acres) for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-. Name of appellant was mutated in revenue papers. Mansha Ram (R-l) has claimed that he was in dire necessity of money to pay loans of other money-lenders and for purchase of a bullock. On his approach to the appellant he demanded interest at the rate of 25% per annum and directed him to execute a sale-deed as a collateral security for the loan. He has repaid Rs. 2000A in Jeth 1976. In Vaisakh 1977 when he went to repay the remaining amount of Rs. 1000/- the appellant demanded Rs. 11000/-. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT151
U.N. Singh, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhati...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yakub Vs. Abdul Rauf and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT216; 2002(1)MPLJ475
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the decree-holder against the order dated 7-8-2000 in execution proceedings in Civil Suit No. 58-A of 1991 of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Burhanpur.2. Mohd. Yakub has obtained decree in the civil suit mentioned above against Abdul Rauf for specific performance of contract of sale of House No. 316, Ward No. 6, Shah Bazar, Burhanpur, District Khandwa. According to plaintiff Mohd. Yakub, defendant Abdul Rauf had executed the agreement to sell on 21-12-1990 and agreed to sell the house for Rs. 62,501/-. An earnest money of Rs. 3,501/- was given to the vendor on that date. According to the plaintiff he was put in possession of 15 x 18 feet area on the southern side of the house in pursuance of this agreement. The plaintiff paid an amount ofRs. 30,000/- to the defendant on 31-12-1990 and an amount of Rs. 29,000/-after the decree for specific performance of contract was passed. The suit was decreed ex parte on 8-10-1996. The Court...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Kumar Taneja Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT224
ORDERN.S. Azad. J. 1. Arguments heard.2. CD. of Crime No. 208/2001, dated 15-7-2001, registered by Excise Sub-Inspector, Chhindwara, pertaining to offences punishable under Section 34 (1) (a) read with Sections 34 (2) and 36-A of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, perused.3. It is the case of the non-applicant that on 14th July, 2001, at 11.00 in the night, a raid was organised and carried out at Hotel Relax and Bar situated at Station Road, Chhindwara, where this petitioner was found sitting at the sale counter, who is the owner and had been running the Hotel so also Restaurant. It is also the case of the non-applicant that in search, 109.64 litres of foreign liquor was found, which was seized in presence of Jiyauddin, theservant of this petitioner, as the petitioner made his escape good, on seeing the raid party.4. It is submitted by Shri Datt that long before raid was carried out, this petitioner leased out the Bar to one Ravi Baghel on 16-5-2001 under a deed of 'Chaloo Restaurant Babat Kir...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Devi Vs. Dharamshala Ramchandra Phoolchand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT226; 2002(1)MPLJ339
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard.The plaintiff/applicant has approached this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction envisaged under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court whereby their application seeking an interim injunction staying the execution of the decree for ejectment of the premises in dispute passed against Dr. Maithlisharan in Suit No. 18-A/98 claiming that it was void and in-effectual in law as against them has been dismissed.2. Plaintiff had filed the suit giving rise to this revision praying for adecree of prohibitory injunction restraining the decree-holders in the aforesaid suit from dispossessing the present plaintiffs from the shot in suit. During the pendency of the suit they filed an application seeking an ad interim injunction in the same terms which application was dismissed. This order has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and order.3. The present respondent Nos. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Dubey Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT222
ORDERN.S. Azad, J. 1. Arguments heard. 2. By order dated 12-7-2001 the Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpurframed a charge against this petitioner for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 giving rise to this revision.3. Shri Prashant Singh has drawn my special attention to Paragraph 9 of the order passed by Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpur wherein it is opined by the learned Special Judge that even if something is accepted without any demand been made for doing some official work, the transaction would fall in the category of bribe. According to Shri Singh there is no iota of evidence on the fact that the petitioner ever made a demand of Rs. 700/- and the amount which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner at the time of trap is well explained. It is also submitted by Shri Singh that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained his being in possession of the aforesaid amount, by filing docum...
Tag this Judgment!Mangu @ Mangilal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT91
S.L. Kochar, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and finding dated 7-5-1992 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 21/91 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC and sentencing to under Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 200A in default, Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and also one year Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 342, IPC.2. In brief, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 18th May, 1990 Kamlabai (P.W. 7) the mother of prosecutrix Kailashbai (P.W. 5) was not in the house, at the relevant time, in the noon, prosecutrix Kailashbai had gone to answer the call of nature at the out skirt of the village, at that time, she was caught by the appellant and taken to the cattle house of one Raisingh Mori. It has also alleged by the prosecution that in the evening at 4.00 PM at the point of knife the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her co...
Tag this Judgment!Martand Ram Chandra Karnik Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT20; 2002(2)MPLJ55
ORDERN.S. Azad, J. 1. Arguments heard.2. By order dated 30th May, 2001 the learned JMFC, Jahalpur framed charge against this petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1989/2000 for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC, which is in challenge in this revision.3. It is submitted by Shri Sharma that the investigation agency proceeded on taking this fact to be true that in U.S., a Limited Company can not be constituted where as it is permissible under the law in that State and a certificate in this respect is already received and submitted in Court at the time of framing of charge but the learned JMFC did not take that certificate into account.4. It is also submitted by Shri Sharma that even the papers submitted on behalf of defence may be considered at the time of framing of charge. In support of .this argument, Shri Sharma has drawn the Court's attention in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, reported in (1996) 9 SCC page 766, wherein it is found dictated ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Shankar Soni Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT68; 2002(1)MPLJ81
ORDERU.N. Singh, J.1. This writ petition impugns the correctness of the order of the C.A.T., Jabalpur in O.A. No. 143/92, which was disposed of being devoid of merit as the points raised therein have been held to be covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of [Syed Ktialid Rizvi and Ors v. Union of India and Ors., (1994) 26 A.T.C. 192].2. The petitioner joined the State Police Service as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 21-8-71, in Radio Branch as per Annexure P-l of the petition. The gradation lists as on 1-4-78 and 1-4-83 showed the name of the petitioner against serial Nos. 54 and 15 respectively. The petitioner was issued a posting order on 3-3-82 to join on promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police, Bastar, a Cadre post of the IPS of M.P., while deputed as a DSP with the Organisation of the Vigilance Commissioner (now designated as Lok-Ayukt). The petitioner grieves that he was not relieved as he was conducting enquiry/investigation in some important matter...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Mittal Vs. Smt. Mala Srivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1290; 2002(2)MPLJ49
ORDER1. Heard.Perused the record.This application which purports to be under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed seeking to enforce the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1583/97 and 1584/97 decided on 15-12-2000.2. A perusal of the order dated 15-12-2000 indicates that the writ petition which was directed against the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior had been dismissed declining to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal.3. It may be noticed that a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot by any stretch of imagination be taken to be a continuation of the proceedings before the Tribunal. This position in law is well settled.4. Obviously, therefore, the question of merger of the order of the Tribunal in the final order passed by this Court dated 15-12-2000 does not arise.5. Further, no direction had been issued in the final order passed by this Court which...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »