Madhya Pradesh Court August 2001 Judgments
Deepak Shukla Vs. Mahendra Chanpuriya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC161; 2002(1)MPLJ4
ORDERS.S. Saraf, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for offence under Section 498A, I.P.C.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these :The petitioner Deepak Shukla was married to one Smt. Savita Shukla, the daughter of the respondent/complainant on 28.2.1993 at Katni. After the marriage Smt. Savita Shukla came to the house of the petitioner at Bhopal and stayed with him from 28.2.1993 to 16.5.1993. She left the house of her husband, the petitioner, on 16.5.1993 and since then she is residing at Katni with her father, the respondent. The petitioner on 25.3.1994 served a legal notice on his wife Smt. Savita Shukla requesting her to join the company of the petitioner. In reply thereto, Smt. Savita Shukla sent a letter alleging wild allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry by the petitioner. On 4.4.1994 the petitioner filed a divorce petition against his wif...
Tag this Judgment!Jhalkanlal Vs. Nand Kishore Lohiya and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT194; 2002(2)MPLJ65
S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court by order dated 2-9-1998 at the admission of this appeal:--'Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the suit property is not the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendants and the plaintiff is not entitled for decree for partition ?'2. The facts relevant for the decision of the question referred to above are that Ghasiram had four sons Kudau, Manaklal, plaintiff Jhalkanlal and defendant No. 1 Nand Kishore. Kudau had died during the life time of his father. The father died in the year 1939. He left behind considerable landed property. He was doing money lending business. Manaklal separated from the joint Hindu family in the year 1951 and after a few years he died. Nand Kishore, Jhalkanlal and Ranibabu widow of Kudau filed Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1972 against the heirs of Manaklal for declaration that the property detailed ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2256
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The appellant has preferred present appeal assailing his conviction and sentence imposed on being found guilty for committing offence under Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 161 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo 1 year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/- on each count. In default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 3 months.2. Appellant was holding post of Patwari in the Department of Revenue, State of Madhya Pradesh. As per prosecution, in order to demarcate land pursuant to order passed by Tehsildar on 24-1-1986 (Ex. P/11A) in Revenue Case No. 11-A/12-85-86, the appellant demanded from Kodu Lal S/o Godan a sum of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification. Complaint (Ex. P/1) was lodged by KoduLal to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Sagar on 22-3-1986. A trap wasLald by party consisting of PW-3 Shri R.S. Choubey, holding post of Deputy Director of Agriculture; PW/7 Shri Y.K. Saxena, Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigat...
Tag this Judgment!Sainik School, Rewa Vs. Rajesh Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT83
Arun Mishra, J. 1. Two letters patent appeals are preferred against the order passed by the Single Judge on 30th October, 2000. The petitioner Rajesh Vishwakarma was directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages. His termination during the period of probation was adjudged to be punitive. The petitioner claims in L.P.A. 379/2000 for back wages. The rcspondent-Sainik School Society has filed L.P.A. No. 320/2000 claiming that service of the petitioner was terminated in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Carpentry Instructor on 9-5-95. He joined on 16-5-95. He was initially appointed on probation for a period of one year. Period of probation was extended on 10th June, 1996 for another year. On 12th April, 1997 (Annexure P-19) before completion of the extended period of probation, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. He was offered one month salary in lieu of the notice period of one month. During the period of probation, several memos were issued to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Aradhna Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR607(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern the disposal of two other connected appeals being I. T. A. No. 35 of 2001 and I. T. A. No. 36 of 2001, as all these appeals are filed by the same asscssee and, secondly, these appeals arise out of a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal except the difference being they relate to different assessment years.2. This is an appeal filed by an assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act against an order dated February 15, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in I. T. A. Nos. 439, 440 and 441/Ind of 1996 arising out of the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87. The facts that led to the filing of these appeals need mention in brief.3. On July 18, 1992, a raid was carried out in the assessee's premises. In this raid operation several incriminating documents were seized which included some bank accounts and statements. Since it was noticed that none of these bank accounts and statements were...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ411
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri, casting a liability on the insurer, present appellant, for the payment of an amount of Rs. 62,000 towards compensation found payable along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act till payment it has come up in appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside of the impugned award.2. The insurer appellant in this appeal has not only challenged the finding returned by the Tribunal on the question relating to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle but also on the question relating to the quantum of compensation. The insurer has further asserted that in view of the violation of the terms and conditions subject to which insurance policy had been issued it was liable to be exonerated altogether from the liability.3. The injured-claimant who had filed the application u...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC281; 2001(3)MPLJ493
ORDER1. Feeling-aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri casting a liability on the present insurer-appellant for the payment of an amount of Rs. 62,000/- towards compensation found payable along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act till payment it has come up in appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside of the impugned award.2. The insurer-appellant, in this appeal has not only challenged the finding returned by the Tribunal on the question relating to the rash and negligent driving of tine offending motor vehicle but also on the question relating to the quantum of compensation. The insurer has further asserted that in view of the violation of the terms and conditions subject to which the insurance policy had been issued it was liable to be exonerated altogether from the liability.3. The injured-claimant who had filed the application under Section 166 of the Motor V...
Tag this Judgment!Aradhna Oil Mills Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN629(MP)
ORDERSapre, J. The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern disposal of other 2 connected appeals being IT Appeal No. 35 of 2001 and IT Appeal No. 36 of 2001, as all these appeals are filed by the same assessee and secondly, these appeals arise out of common order of the Tribunal except the difference being they relate to different assessment years.2. This is an appeal filed by an assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order dated 15-2-2001, passed by the Tribunal, Indore Bench in IT Appeal Nos. 439,440 and 441 (Indore) of 1996 arising out of the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87. Facts that led to filing of these appeals need mention in brief.3. On 18-7-1992, a raid was carried out in the assessee's premises. In this raid operation several incriminating documents were seized which included some bank accounts and statements. Since it was noticed that none of these bank accounts and statements were reflected in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Gupta Vs. Smt. Ramrati Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT181; 2002(2)MPLJ459
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC. Arguments on the question of admission heard.2. The plaintiff's suit for eviction has been decreed under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') by the Trial Court and this decree has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The notice dated 12-9-1994 (Ex. P-11) was servedon the defendant on 14-9-1994 as per postal acknowledgment Ex. P-12. The rent from 1-10-1993 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month was demanded by this notice. The rate of rent is not in dispute. The defendant did not pay or tender the arrears of rent within two months of the receipt of demand notice. The Courts below have found that the defendant had already paid rent upto January, 1994. Thus the rent from 1-2-1994 was due. It was neither paid nor tendered as required by Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, and therefore, the defendant became liable to eviction.3. The question...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaya Bhopatkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT238; 2001(3)MPLJ585
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Govt. Advocate representing the contesting respondents.2. Perused the record.3. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereunder while quashing the order passed by the Labour Court affirmed by the Industrial Court, the case has been remanded back to the Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the appellant-workman had worked satisfactorily for a period of six months against a clear vacancy with a direction that for the purpose of a clear vacancy the Labour Court was to examine the recruitment rules and consider whether posts are available providing further that if the posts are not available then also the question regarding the post on which the appellant could be declared as permanent be considered.4. The facts in brief, shorn of details, and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass : The appellant-wor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »