Madhya Pradesh Court December 2001 Judgments
Jai Singh Vs. Director General, Headquarters Central Reserve Police Fo ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT203
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. Sole question involved for decision in the instant case is whether the order of removal of petitioner owing to receipt of adverse character verification report is proper.2. Petitioner was selected as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force; he was appointed as Constable on 4-4-2000 and commenced his training with effect from 30th April, 2000. While he was undergoing the training, he was removed as per Order P-2 dated 5-1-2001. His services were terminated on expiry of one month period on receipt of the order dated 5-1-2001. Petitioner submitted a reply P-3 on 25-1-2001 and contended that he stood acquitted in the criminal case by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Satna on 30th June, 2000 in Case No. 418/99. A copy of order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was also filed. Perusal of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class indicates that offence was compounded as parties entered into compromise. Offence was under Sections 147, 323, 325, 294/14...
Tag this Judgment!Bapulal and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT70
S.L. Kochar, J.1. Both these appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and findings dated 3-2-1993, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch District Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 291/91 thereby convicting appellant No. 1 Bapulal for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC and sentencing him RI for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- respectively and appellant No. 2 Shaligram for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1)(g), IPC and sentencing him RI for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-respectively. In default of payment of fine, both the appellants were directed to suffer six months and one month RI for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC respectively. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief, before the Trial Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT107; 2003(3)MPLJ448
S.L. Kochar, J.1. This appeal has been directed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18-2-93, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwaha (West Nimar), convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for six months.2. The prosecution case in nut-shell is that on 23-4-1992 in the noon, a dispute of partition had taken place between the appellant Jagannath and his father Bhuwaniram and brother Rameshwar as well. It is alleged by the prosecution that during that dispute, the appellant issued threat for ablazing the house. On the same day in the noon at about 2.30 p.m., one part of the house, in which Bhuwaniram along with his son Rameshwar and the present appellant were residing started burning and the appellant was seen going with a tin container (KANSARA). This was witnessed by P.W.1 Chunnilal and P.W.2 Bhaiyalal, the cousin brothers of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Raju @ Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2367; I(2002)DMC655; 2002(3)MPLJ277
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellant Raju @ Rajendra Prasad has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Agar in S.T. No. 60/1992 convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default S.I. for 15 days.2. The police of Police Station Agar, Distt. Shajapur filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and one another co-accused Shri Ram (who expired during the course of trial) for offences under Sections 498A, 506, 306 and 304B of I.P.C.3. The prosecution case in short was that deceased Manjula Bai was married before six to seven months from the date of incident i.e. 19.7.1990 at 4.00 p.m. After marriage, she was ill-treated by appellant oftenly, after consuming liquor without any reason. The appellant also used to beat her. On 19.7.1990 she was beaten by the appellant and also instigated her for commission of suicide.4. The deceased was taken to the hospita...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. JaIn Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT239; 2002(2)MPLJ602
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 14-2-2000 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 1/99 of First Additional Judge, Shivpuri, thereby framing charge under Sections 467 and 471 of IPC and also under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner has filed this revision praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings aforesaid against him. 2. The facts in brief shorn of details lie in a narrow compass:Some Water Proofing material was purchased for Mahuar Colony, Karera and further it was found that this material was not of ISI mark and of inferior quality. Similarly in the work of plantation the muster rolls were forged in name of fake persons which were verified by the petitioner in his capacity as SDO (RBC) Karera Sub-Division. 3. It has been urged for the petitioner that the muster roll was prepared by some other person and similarly the water proofing material was purchased by order of some higher authority. In the circumstances it c...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Grover Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT490; 2002(2)MPLJ178
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 5-10-2001, Annexure P-5, passed by the Executive Engineer Civil Construction Unit Ministry of Environment and Forest, the respondent No. 4, and further to command the respondents topermit the petitioner to participate in the tender proceeding relating to public notice dated 30-9-2001, Annexure P-6, published in newspaper. In addition to the aforesaid prayer reliefs have been sought directing the respondents not to discriminate or victimize the petitioner and to grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Sans unnecessary details the facts as have been depicted in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a reputed Engineer and a recognised contractor. He is registered with the Public Works Department as a Contracto...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Balaji Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]128STC414(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. The decision rendered in this writ shall govern the disposal of the other connected writ being W.P. No. 1327 of 2001, as in both these writs, common issue is involved and urged. The facts are few.2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By this petition, it seeks to assail the order dated March 27, 2001 (annexure P-l), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, in its revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994.3. A perusal of impugned order and the submission pressed in service by the petitioner shows that the only question which was being debated before the Revisionary Tribunal which passed the impugned order was that adequate opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to cross-examine certain transporters by the assessing officer to whom the case was remanded for inquiry. In the opinion of the assessing officer as also that of the revisionary authority adequate o...
Tag this Judgment!H.J. Warren Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT235; 2002(2)MPLJ136
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. The question involved in the writ petition is whether the shortfall of 81 days of service should have been condoned so that the petitioner could qualify for reservists pension. 2. The facts lies in narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed, in Royal Indian Air Force on 27-5-1949, initially as Motor Transport Driver. Thereafter he was remustered as Corporal (Musician). Petitioner worked till 27-5-1958. He was kept in reserved list and was recalled on 14-12-1962 and was discharged on 5-3-1964. Initially the regular term of engagement was 9 years. An order of discharge P-2 indicates that total service in the regular air force reserve was five years 284 days. Thus, the petitioner's total service comes to 14 years 284 days. 15 years is the minimum qualifying service of obtaining the reservists pension. It is not disputed that period of 60 days', the petitioner is entitled to add on account of annual leave, which has to be added to his credit on the date of his dischar...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Aarsay and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT436; 2002(3)MPLJ226
N.S. Azad, J. 1. This order shall dispose of M.Cr.C. No. 6362/2001 filed on behalf of the petitioner (State) so also M.Cr.C. No. 5981/2001, filed on behalf of Uma Aarsay, the complainant, as in both of these petitions, the order of grant of anticipatory bail to these respondents which are dated 28th September, 2001 and 1st October, 2001 are sought to be set aside. 2. By separate orders dated 28-9-2001, Special Judge, Hoshangabad, granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and by order dated 1-10-2001 to respondent No. 1, in respect of Crime No. 81/2001, registered at Police Station Anusuchit Jati, Anusuchit Janjati Kalyan, Hoshangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and (xiv) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, making following observations :--^^vuqlwfpr tkfr tu tkfr vR;kpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e]1989 dh /kkjk 18 ds vUrxZr tekur ij fjgk djus dk izko/kku ugha gS] fdUrq dslMk;jh ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmraj Singh Vs. Vaidya Nath Prasad Khare and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT301; 2002(1)MPLJ458
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against order dated 8-9-2001 of the 1st Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 22-A of 2000 by which he has been directed to value the suit for purposes of Court fee at Rs. 82,500/- and pay ad valorem Court-fee. 2. The relevant averments in the plaint are that the defendant No. 1 granted sub-lease of a portion of the plot shown in red colour in the plaint map to the plaintiff by lease-deed dated 29-7-1995 and placed him in possessionthereof; the plaintiff is in possession of this land and has raised some construction thereon; the defendant No. 1 has got surrender deed dated 31-12-1999 in respect of this land registered in his favour in which a consideration of Rs. 85,500/- has been shown; the plaintiff has not signed on this deed and he is not a party to it; it is forged and the defendant No. 1 is threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from that plot. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration that the sai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »