Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Ramchandra Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC451; 2001(3)MPHT302
Shambhoo Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed by the accused against the judgment & order dated 4-6-96 passed by A.SJ. Garoth in S.T. No. 111/93 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and was sentenced to 14 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, two years further R.I.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9-2-93, Constables Ram Kumar (P.W. 1), Indraveer, Dhruvram and Head-constable Naresh Kumar while checking train No. 9019 down, found the appellant standing in the corridor of the general coach having a bag in his hand. On interrogation, he told them thai he was having opium in his possession. The alighted from the train at Railway Station, Jhaiawad Road and boarded 56 up train and reached Shyamgarh and produced the appellant before S.H.O. Lal Singh Yadav, G.R.P. Shyamgarh. Shri Yadav asked him whether he wanted to be searched in pre...
Shilpi Gupta Vs. Professional Examination Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT637
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The factual matrix and grounds of law raised being similar this batch of writ petitions was heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. As a detailed return has been filed in writ Petition No. 156/20011 will deal with the facts of the said case for the sake of convenience and clarity. I will also refer to the grievances of the writ petitioners in other writ petitions at the appropriate place.2. In Writ Petition No. 156/2001 the facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner was selected for the purpose of engineering education. She was called at the Selection Centre situate at Bhopal. As she had not obtained adequate marks she was given admission without allotment of any Branch. She was directed to appear at the Engineering College, Jabalpur. The petitioner in compliance of the said direction appeared and according to her merits was allotted B.E. Mechanical Branch. After due formalities she started attending her classes. At that juncture an a...
Sudhakar Vs. Smt. Kalavati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC155
S.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. The appellant (husband), has directed this appeal against the judgment and the decree dated 23.4.1991 passed by the ADJ, Indore in Case No. 186/1991 thereby dismissing the application filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the parties are Hindu and they were married on 18.11.1981 in accordance With the Hindu religion and custom. Both the parties lived together as husband and wife till September, 1984 and out of the marital relationship between the appellant and the respondent, one daughter and one son were born to respondent Kalavati. Both the children remained in the custody of the respondent since 1984 when the parties have started living separately.3. In the application filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that after their marriage in 1981 they lived together till September, 1984 and from his wedlock, two children...
Ramlallu Bais Vs. Vishwamitra Pathak and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2002MP1; 2001(4)MPHT219; 2001(3)MPLJ23
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by order dated 7-3-2001 passed in W.P. No. 7100/2000 [2001(4) M.P.H.T. 43] whereby writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and it has been held that the Election Petition filed by him is within the period of limitation.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 Vishwamitra Pathak filed Election Petition under Section 66-A of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa i.e. the Election Tribunal challenging the election of the appellant Ramlallu Bais as Chairman of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Singarouli. After service of notice, appellant herein, appeared and resisted the prayer of respondent No. 1 raising various pleas including the plea that the Election Petition is barred by limitation as the same was not presented within 30 days from the date ...
Vinay Kumar Saxena Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ830; 2001(3)MPLJ306
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to properly investigate with regard to crime No. 114/99 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148/149, 365, 323, 294 and 506-511 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Gorakhpur on the basis of FIR lodged by the petitioner and further to quash the order by which the investigation has been transferred to Criminal Investigation Department, Bhopal. Apart from these two reliefs other reliefs have been prayed which are essentially ancillary to the aforesaid reliefs.2. Facts as have been portrayed in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a contractor and has undertaken the works of constructions in the Housing Board. The petitioner had made a complaint against one A.K.S. Tomar, the Additional Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board, Jabalpur reg...
P.N. Ramakrishnan and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT299
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. This case has been placed before us by the Order of Hon'ble Chief Justice, on a reference made by one of us (Jain, J), as the correctness of the preposition laid down by a Single Bench of this Court in Bajji (1981 MPLJ 657), was doubted.2. The question referred for our decision is this:--'Whether in a case where at the very commencement it was apparent that the offence was non-cognizable, the report made by apolice officer after investigation contrary to Section 155(2) i.e., without the order of the Magistrate, could be treated as 'Complaint' under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?'3. Respondent No. 2-P.P.S. Sidhu, the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., New Delhi, on 8-3-2000, made a written report to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, alleging, inter-alia, that accused petitioners who are members of C.R.P.F., have formed an Association in violation of the provisions of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, (for short, 'the Act') ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nabhinandan Digamber Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR91(MP)
1. The following question of law was proposed by the petitioner for the year 1988-89 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the agricultural income will not form part of total income for the purpose of computing the accumulation of income in excess of 25 per cent. of the total income as laid down under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, asking this court to direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question for our determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the agricultural income will not form part of total income for the purpose of computing the accumulation of income in excess of 25 per cent. of the total income as laid down under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act 1961 ?'3. Mr. Arya submi...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ramji Kewat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT425
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The factual matrix and the question of law being similar in these writ petitions they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in W.P. No. 6905/2000 are herein depicted.2. The petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was established by notification dated 1st September 1956 under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The affairs of the Corporation are governed by the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as under the Insurance Act, 1938. The central office of the Corporation is located at Jeevan Bima Marg, Bombay and under the Central Office there are Zonal Offices. The Central Zonal Office is located at Bhopal controlling the Divisional and Branch Offices in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. There is a Divisional Office at Raipur and under the said Divisional Office there are a number of Branch Offices....
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manik Rao and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT625; 2001(3)MPLJ637
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The Insurer has filed the present appeal dis-satisfied with award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim case No. 103/98, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/- for the death of one Ramesh.2. On 9-1-96, Ramesh, a student of class XIIth, aged 18 years, was going to his school situated at Saunsar on a motor-cycle. A Trax bearing No. MP22-B/4367, driven by Javed @ Pasha in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor-cycle. In the accident Ramesh suffered serious injuries and died in the hospital. Report of the accident was lodged and a criminal case was registered at crime No. 519/96 at the concerned Police Station. The Vehicle was owned by Bhaskar and insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. The deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month.3. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the deceased was not earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The Trax was not driven in a rash and negligent manner by its dr...
Sushma Singh and ors. Vs. Sunder Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ666
Fakhruddin, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') by the applicants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 133 of 1988, decided on 23.7.1998.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 18.4.1985 at about 11 a.m. deceased Harbhanu Singh Sikarwar was going on his motor cycle No. CPG 5252 along with his friend Asharam from village Lalghati to Lashkar via Purani Chhawani. At that time tractor No. MBG 6576, being driven by respondent No. 2, Rajaram rashly and negligently at a high speed dashed against the motor cycle; the impact of the dash was so severe that Harbhanu Singh and Asharam fell down and the tractor ran over the motor cycle as a result of which Harbhanu Singh died on the spot, Asharam was seriously injured and the motor cycle was damaged. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which Cri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »