Madhya Pradesh Court August 2001 Judgments
Mahadeo and Another Vs. Shakun Bai Ghagre and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT152; 2002(1)MPLJ94
S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal by order dated 29-8-1988 :-- (1) Whether it was not open to the respondent/plaintiff as legal representative of original plaintiff, to plead her independent title in the light of Bhagwandas Tiwari v. Gaya Prasad and others (1993 MPLJ 469) (2) Whether the first appeal Court wrongly held that the appellants could not challenge the validity of sale-deed allegedly executed by Gauribai 2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred to above are that Gauribai was Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 91 area 0.809 Hectare and Khasra No. 162 area 1.016 Hectare of village Kharipaika, Tehsil Sausor, District Chhindwara. She was also the owner of the house in that village. She had sold Khasra No. 91 to Punya. 3. Gauribai filed the civil suit on 23-7-1980 stating in para 4 of the plaint that she is cancel...
Tag this Judgment!Lalta Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC78
ORDERS.S. Saraf, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been directed for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these :The petitioner was married to the deceased Ram who committed suicide on 11.5.1999. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Bamhani-Banjar, District Mandla. Merg was registered and the legal proceedings were conducted. On 4.1.2001 a Crime No. 3/2001 was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 306, I.P.C. It has been alleged by the prosecution that there were strained relations between the petitioner and her husband, the deceased Ram, and due to the extreme bitterness they used to quarrel off and on. It is, further, alleged that on 11.5.1999 when the deceased Ram committed suicide by hanging himself on the tree, there was a furious quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner and consequently the deceased comm...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT259; 2001(3)MPLJ569
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J. 1. Respondent No. 4-contemner, Ramakant Ashthana, who was found in possession on supurdgi a disputed vehicle (Bus), was directed vide the order dated 3-10-1997 of this Court passed in Misc. Criminal Petition No. 3005/94, to produce the said vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar within a month, irrespective of any earlier order passed by the Courts at Gwalior or in the District of Bhind. It was further directed that the Magistrate at Lahar shall be free to pass fresh orders in respect of the supurdgi of the bus, in the nature and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the likelihood of the tampering of the same during the pendency of the trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar was also asked to expedite the trial of the case and decide the same at the earliest, preferably within six months.2. Petitioner Babulal had thereafter filed an application under Section 482, Cr.PC before this Court stating that the respondent-contemner has ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta Bai Vs. Gopal Das
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC110
ORDERS.B. Sakrikar, J.1. Defendant/appellant has directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3.4.1996 passed by I Additional District Judge, Neemuch in Civil Suit No. 38-C/94, thereby passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against appellant and in favour of respondent/plaintiff.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant and respondent are husband and wife and the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.3.1991 according to Hindu religion and customs at village Narayangarh. After the said marriage, appellant lived at her matrimonial house alongwith respondent till 31.7.1993. On 31.7.1993 she went to her parental house and voluntarily residing alongwith her parents and despite efforts of the appellant she is not ready to consumate marital relations. Respondent (husband) filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') for grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights against...
Tag this Judgment!Rampal Singh Vs. M.P.S.R.T. Corporation and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT55
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. By this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 5-2-2001 passed by the Industrial Court in appeal whereby, it had set aside the order of the Labour Court, dated 30-9-1991, directing for classifying the petitioner as booking agent. 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as Conductor by order dated 5-2-1982. Asserting that he had worked as Booking Agent from 17-5-1983 for more than six months, he filed application under Section 31 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act before the Labour Court inter alia praying that he be classified as such. Labour Court on consideration of the material placed before it held that petitioner worked as Booking Agent from 17-5-1983 to 11-11-1985 and as such, directed for his classification as such from 17-5-1983. Aggrieved by the same M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Le. employer filed appeal before the Industrial Co...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mushamma Sarod Patnaha and Others Vs. Harishankar and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT149; 2002(2)MPLJ46
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19-9-2000 in Civil Suit No. 46-A/2000 of IInd Additional District Judge, Satna whereby application of the plaintiffs/appellants marked as I.A. No. 3 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction was rejected. 2. Undisputably, Ayodhya Prasad was the original holder of the suit-property bearing House No. 12-Kha, Ward No. 40, Chawk Bazar, Satna and House No. 108, Subhash Park, Satna. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are also co-sharers and have l/4th share in the suit-property and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the same. The respondent No. 1 is the son of Ayodhya Prasad, while the other respondents 2 to 6 are the LRs of the remaining sons of Ayodhya Prasad. 3. An application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit-property was also filed by the plaintiffs appellants. The said application has been dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Rajeev Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT58
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. All these revisions (No. 630/1998, 18/1999 and 22/1999) arise out of the order dated 25-8-1998, passed by Special Judge, Ujjain, in Special Case No. 8/1996, discharging accused Rajeev Jain (the respondent here in Criminal Revision No. 630/1998) and two others of the charge under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while directing framing of charges against other co-accused persons (the applicants here in Criminal Revisional Nos. 18/1999 and 22/1999), for the said offences with the aid of Sections 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. For the sake of convenience all these persons shall hereafter be referred as 'accused person(s)'. Criminal Revision No. 630/1998 is preferred by the State challenging discharge of accused Rajeev Jain, while Criminal Revision Nos. 18/1999 and 22/1999 are preferred by other co-accused persons against the charges framed againstthem. All these revisions have been heard as connected matters and are being dispo...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Azeem Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ982; 2002(2)MPHT173; 2002(3)MPLJ171
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 12-10-95, in Claim Case No. 114/92.2. The claimant/respondent No. 1 filed an application for award of compensation as he suffered injuries in a motor accident. The averments of the claimant/respondent No. 1 in the claim petition were that on 26-3-90 at about 10.00 P.M. he was driving mini bus No. CIC 9501. He had stopped the said mini bus on the left side of the road Near Apsara Talkies, Bhopal, when truck No. CIR 8412 which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2, dashed against the said mini bus, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant/respondent No. 1. Admittedly the respondent No. 3 Jabbar Khan is the owner of the said truck while the appellant is the insurer of the said vehicle. The claimant/respondent No. 1 claimed compensation of Rs. 2,98,019.45 paise on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident.3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant as well a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. Harcharan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2002MP17; 2001(4)MPHT254; 2001(3)MPLJ389
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned Govt. Advocate representing the appellant/State.2. Perused the record.3. The dispute in the present case relates to the title in respect of certain agricultural holdings. The respondent in this appeal had filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the aforesaid agricultural holdings and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants including the State of M.P. through the Collector, and the Tahsildar, Gwalior from either dispossessing him from the land in dispute or interfering in his possession thereof.4. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendants denying the right title and interest of the plaintiff. They had also asserted that the Patta claimed to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff, dated 20-4-1947, was farzi. The Trial Court had decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed in appeal. Thereafter, the State of M.P., and the other defendant the Tahsildar, filed a Second Appeal No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmansingh Vs. Parmanand Damani and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1214
A.K. Gohil, J.1. The appellant, owner of the vehicle, has filed this misc. appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') against the order dated 7.12.1998 passed by Third M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 24 of 1998 whereby allowed the application of respondents-claimants filed under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code.2. The short submission of Mr. Yadav, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has no power to order for the attachment of the property on the principle under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code as under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 240 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code are not applicable to the claim cases and more so the circumstances for passing an order under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code also do not exist in this case.3. In reply, Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for respondents cited a decision in the case of Mansingh Sajjusingh v. Sudhir Ganpatrao Girdhari 1986 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »