Madhya Pradesh Court February 2001 Judgments
Mahendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Mishra and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3455; 2001(4)MPHT125
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the order dated 1-12-1995 in Criminal Case No. 201 of 1994 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satna and also the order dated 4-10-1997 in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 1996 of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna.2. Applicant Mahendra Kumar Mishra filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satna. He was examined under Section 200 of the Code. The statements of the five witnesses, produced by him, were also recorded. The case was registered under Sections 294, 323 and 506 (Para-II), IPC and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Magistrate found that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons and, therefore, issued process against them for their appearance in the Court. The accused persons appeared and submitted an application for their discharge on t...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. and Another Vs. Anil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ318; 2001(3)MPHT30; (2005)12SCC213
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. 1. L.P.A. 302/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Anil), L.P.A. 304/2000 (State of M.P, and another v. Jagdish); L.P.A. No. 305/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Jashir Mohammad); L.P.A. 307/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Rarndin); L.P.A. 309/2000 (State of M.P. ami another v. Harishchandra); L.P.A. 338/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Premchand Agrawal); L.P.A. 343/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Rajendrasingh and another); L.P.A. 351/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Makttan); L.P.A. 352/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Rajjusingh and another); L.P.A. 357/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Ramsingh), L.P.A. 358/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Sushilkumar Sondhiya and another); L.P.A. 359/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Ramji); L.P.A. 450/2000 (State of M.P. and another v. Mahadeo). This batch of 13 cases is proposed to be disposed of by this order since they are common in nature and the question for consideration is also similar. 2. Responde...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2001MP309; 2001(3)MPHT81; 2001(2)MPLJ542
ORDERDr. Maithli Sharan, J.1. The following question, arising in the case, has been referred to the Full Bench :'Whether a Freedom-fighter is entitled to pension from the date of the application or from the date of order and the rules amended on 8th March, 1999, will have prospective or retrospective effect ?'2. The brief facts of the case, lying in a narrow compass and relevant to the decision of this case, are apt to be dilated hereunder: The petitioner filed Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 11-3-1998, passed by the Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, granting him 'Rajya Samman Nidhi' under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Niyam, 1972'). His further prayer, inter alia, is for an appropriate direction to the respondents to make payments of 'Samman Nidhi' from the date of application. ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Pachori Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2981; 2001(3)MPHT96; 2001(3)MPLJ679
C.K. Prasad, J. 1. Santosh Kumar Pachori was put on trial for offence under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. First Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad by his judgment dated 20th December, 1988 passed in Sessions Trial No. 104/87, acquitted him of the aforesaid charges but found him guilty for offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for the period already undergone by him as under-trial prisoner. State being aggrieved by his acquittal, has preferred appeal, after obtaining the leave of Court and the same has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 582/89. Santosh Kumar Pachori, hereinafter referred to as accused, being aggrieved by his conviction, has also preferred appeal, which has been registered asCriminal Appeal No. 204/89. Both the appeals arise from the same judgment, hence they are being disposed of together.2. Accused Santosh Kumar Pachori and Man Singh, the father of the prosecutrix Ku. Nirmala Singh (P.W. 7), were at the relevant time p...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushalya Bai and ors. Vs. Ramkishan Kirar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: I(2001)ACC742; 2001ACJ1176
Arun Mishra, J. 1. Claimants have filed the present appeal aggrieved by dismissal of their claim petition which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants claimed compensation for the death of Shambhu Dayal Sharma in an accident dated 11.6.90, who was serving as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department and was posted at Kolaras, District Shivpuri. Claimants averred in the claim petition that at about 6-6.30 p.m. when the deceased was performing his duty at village Ropura, within the periphery of the Police Station, Tenduwa, the non-applicant No. 2 Bhanu alias Chandrabhan, son of Ramkishan Kirar was driving the tractor-trolley in question, which was owned by non-applicant No. 1 Ramkishan Kirar, at that time, deceased Shambhu Dayal Sharma intercepted the tractor-trolley to check it as it was carrying in it forest produce, wood, etc., which were collected by committing theft in forest area. As soon as the Forest Guard Shambhu Dayal Sharma came in front to n...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT397; 2001(3)MPLJ616
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 5-1-1999 contained in Annexure P-18.2. The facts as have been unfolded in the writ petition are that the Central Government has sponsored a scheme for providing better educational facilities to the children of the rural areas and the said scheme is called 'Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission'. The scheme provides guidelines for smooth functioning of the projects established under the scheme. In accordance with the scheme a post for Block Resource Centre Coordinator was created and it was specifically provided that the appointment would be made to the said post either on deputation or on contract basis and the selection is to be made by the District Level Appointment Committee. The petitioner submitted an application for the appointment of the said post a...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Khan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC355
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 5.11.1999 delivered by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Criminal Appeal No. 157/96 arising out of judgment dated 30.11.1996 delivered by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Budhar in Criminal Case No. 147/94.2. The applicant has been convicted by both the Courts below under Section 498A, I.P.C. He has been sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 600/- has been imposed upon him; in default of payment of fine, he is required to undergo a further sentence of 3 months' R.I.3. The facts of this case are that the complainant Rojleen Khan is the wife of the applicant. She lodged an FIR against the applicant on 27.2.1994 stating that she was married to the applicant on 17th of December, 1980. After marriage the complainant lived with the applicant and had given birth to two daughters. It was alleged in the FIR that the applicant had begun to treat the complainant with cruelty during the subsistence...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. D.K. JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT506; 2001(2)MPLJ619
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Annexure P-10), dated August 12, 1999, whereby respondents falling in the trade of Fitters (Auto/Auto Electric) have been granted pay scale of Rs. 260-350 from 16-10-1981, Before adverting to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, brief narration of facts would be necessary.2. Respondents are working in the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, in the trade of Fitters (Auto) and Fitters (Auto/Electrical) in the pay scale of Rs. 210-290. On the recommendations of Third Pay Commission, an Expert Classification Committee was set up in 1974 in the Ministry of Defence, under the Chairmanship of Justice K.C. Puri. The Committee had representatives from two Defence Employees Federations and official members of the Ministry of Defence and Finance. The task of this Committee was to fit the industrial workers in the appropriate pay scales after applying the technique of j...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT326; 2001(2)MPLJ69
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, in suo motu Revision No. 579/95-96, decided on 30-1-1997 and the order of the State Government in Revision No. 1-62/97/Revision, decided on 17-6-1997.2. Petitioner has applied for allotment of a land under the provisions of Revenue Book Circular. Petitioner in his application has mentioned that the land is recorded as 'Kadeem'. Petitioner is cultivating the land, therefore, lease of the land should be granted in his favour. After Notification, the Patwari entered the witness box and deposed that the land is recorded as 'Beehad'. On the finding that the land is recorded as 'Beehad' Tehsildar, Morena directed grant of lease of the land in favour of petitioner, holding therein that for allotment of 'Beehad' land, there is no reservation for any caste. The applicant should not possess more than 12 hectare land after the allotment; the petitioner falls in that category. 'Beehad' is less th...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(MP)558; [2001]249ITR1(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The petitioner by filing this writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, claims the following relief :'A writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to compel the respondents to pay interest of Rs. 2,55,320 as shown in para. 11(ii) above together with interest thereon from October 21, 1992, up to the date of the actual payment.'2. The aforesaid relief is claimed on the strength of Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. In substance, the case of the petitioner is that there was a raid (search and seizure) conducted by the income-tax authorities under Section 132 ofthe Income-tax Act on May 22, 1988. This resulted in seizure of several movable properties which included some cash also. Eventually after completing all the assessment proceedings determining the liability arising out of the raid, a sum of Rs. 6,54,570 which was seized was refunded to the petitioner. It is this amount on which the petitioner has cl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »