Madhya Pradesh Court August 2001 Judgments
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Prasad Purohit and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC34; 2001(3)MPLJ339
S.S. Jha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by Vacation Judge in writ petition No. 797/1999 on 27.5.1999. This appeal is filed by Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and State Transport Undertaking under Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Dispute relates to temporary permit inter-State route from Bhopal to Kota via Biaora, Bhojpur. This route is inter-State between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The route between Bhopal to Kota not in the schedule of any scheme of nationalisation of 182 kms. of this route overlaps Nationalised route and is specially reserved for State Transport Undertaking. Respondent No. 1 Ram Prasad Purohit is interested in plying Stage Carriage services on this exclusive portion of route and he has made various attempts to get permit on Bhopal-Kota and Bhopal-Neemuch route which covers 182 kms. of route from Bhopal to Bhojpur exclusively reserved for State Transport Undertaking. Earlier Ram Prasad Purohit w...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Akbar and Another Vs. Sameer Kumar Pal and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT37
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 by order dated 19-8-1999 at the time of admission of this appeal:--'(1) Whether the Courts below, in view of the admissions of the plaintiffs and their witnesses, have erred in passing decree of eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the burden of establishing availability of alternative accommodation lay upon the defendants?'2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred to above arc that plaintiffs Sameer Kumar Pal and Suresh Chand Pal have purchased the suit house bearing No. 1214, Corporation Chowk, Wright Town, Jabalpur by registered sale-deed dated 31-12-1991 from its original owners. The defendants were their tenants in the suit accommodation and were carrying on their business therein.3. The plaintiffs' case ...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Narayan Vs. Chandu Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT283; 2001(3)MPLJ630
ORDERS.S. Jha, J. 1. The revision is filed against the order allowing application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC and rejection of petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 16, CPC. 2. Plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. He prayed for declaration that the sale-deed dated 21-4-1970 be declared null and void. Counter-claim for perpetual injunction is filed by defendants 1 and 2. It was contended that the dispute regarding challenge to the sale-deed cannot be heard by the Civil Court as the jurisdiction vests with the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions of 'M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI DHARAKON KA UDHAR DENE WALON KE BHUMI HADAPANE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM, 1976' (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') and it was prayed that the pleadings regarding cancellation of the sale-deed should be deleted from the plaint by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have moved an application under Order VI Rule 17, CP...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan Vs. Ramjidas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT250
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Laxmi Narayan had filed a miscellaneous appeal registered as M.A. No. 197/96 challenging an order passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, whereby he had rejected his application for the grant of Probate. The Probate had been sought for on the strength of the alleged 'wills' dated 23-8-76, 24-9-90 and 25-9-90; claimed to have been executed by his mother in his favour. 3. The miscellaneous appeal referred to hereinabove was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 4-2-97. Thereafter, Laxmi Narayan filed an application seeking review of the aforesaid order which was registered as M.C.C. No. 185/97. This application seeking review was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the order dated 29-8-97. 4. It was thereafter that Letters Patent Appeal No. 257/97 was filed by Laxmi Narayan challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4-2-97 as well...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Shripad Honavar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR328(MP)
A. K. Gohil, J.1. Heard on I. A. No. 1892 of 2001 an application for taking a fixed date.2. After a perusal of the file it is clear that in this case every time this court is giving fixed date. On August 3, 2000, learned senior counsel himself took the date August 16, 2000, thereafter on August 16, 2000, again Shri Abhyankar prayed for time and for a fixed date of September 8, 2000. On October 14, 2000, again adjournment was asked on the ground that learned senior counsel is busy before some other Bench and the case was adjourned and listed on November 7, 2000. On November 7, 2000, Shri Abhyankar again repeatedly prayed for an adjournment for January, 2001. On April 26, 2001, Shri Rahul Gupta took a fixed date of July 5, 2001, and again on July 5, 2001, Shri Abhyankar prayed for time. Today again he prayed for a fixed date. As clear from the record this criminal revision is pending since 1996 against the order passed by Additional C. J. M., Indore (Economic Offences Court), for quashin...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Prasad Soni Vs. Manju Lata and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT216; 2002(1)MPLJ16
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC. Arguments on the question of admission heard.2. It was not disputed that Dashrath Lal Jain was owner of the house in dispute situated in Village Jaithari Bazar, Tehsil Sohagpur, District Shahdol.3. It has been held by the First Appellate Court after appreciation of the evidence on record that in the year 1967 Dashrath Lal Jain took a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the defendant and mortgaged his house with him. The possession of the house was also delivered to the defendant. The loan was to be repaid upto the year 1969. The defendant wrote letter dated 26-5-1967 (Ex. P-1) to the effect that even after the year 1969 if Dashrath Lal Jain would like to take back the possession of the house, the defendant would give him the possession. The document creating the mortgage was unregistered. The claim of the defendant that in the year 1969 Dashrath Lal Jain sold his house orally to the defendant was accepted by the Trial...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Shripad Honavar Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR328(MP)
A. K. Gohil J., Heard on I. A. No. 1892 of 2001 an application for taking a fixed date.After a perusal of the file it is clear that in this case every time this court is giving fixed date. On 3-8-2000, learned senior counsel himself took the date 16-8-2000, thereafter on 16-8-2000, again Shri Abhyankar prayed for time and for a fixed date of 8-9-2000. On 14-10-2000, again adjournment was asked on the ground that learned senior counsel is busy before some other Bench and the case was adjourned and listed on 7-11-2000. On 7-11-2000, Shri Abhyankar again repeatedly prayed for an adjournment for January, 2001. On 26-4-2001, Shri Rahul Gupta took a fixed date of 5-7-2001, and again on 5-7-2001, Shri Abhyankar prayed for time. Today again he prayed for a fixed date. As clear from the record this criminal revision is pending since 1996 against the order passed by Additional C. J. M., Indore (Economic Offences Court), for quashing charge dated 9-3-1996. From the perusal of criminal complaint i...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) Geetika Nigam Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR289]; 2002(2)MPHT70; 2002(1)MPLJ289
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 7-5-99 (Annex. P-l 0), whereby the disciplinary authority passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service as a measure of punishment. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 22-4-2000 (Annexure P-l3), whereby appeal/review preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present petition are that a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner by order dated 11-3-97; containing four charges, which are as follows:- Charge No. 1; Dr. (Mrs.) G. Nigam, M.O. attached to the MPEB Hospital, Sarni, had submitted Casual leave application for the period from 4-7-96 to 12-7-96 with permission to avail 13th and 14th July, 96 being Second Saturday and Sunday. She was to join her duty on expiry of leave ie., on 15-7-96. But she failed to join duty at MP...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsiram and Another Vs. Durgaprasad and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT469
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court by order dated26-6-1998 at the time of admission of this appeal:--(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the applications made under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and also that made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code ? (2) Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession qua defendant is legal and proper ? (3) Whether the finding of Lower Appellate Court that mistake occurred in mentioning the khasra number is borne out of the pleadings 2. The facts relevant for the decision of the question referred above are that Punna executed registered sale-deed dated 15-2-1957 in favour of plaintiff Durga Prasad. In this sale-deed the land sold has been described as Khasra No. 98 area 1.92 acres of village Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Dineshchandra and Others Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT86
N.K. Jain, J. 1. Both these appeals arise from the judgment dated 31-10-1995 passed by VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, in S.T. No. 426/1994, convicting accused appellants Dineshchandra s/o Shankarlal, Dineshchandra s/o Ramchandra and Yusuf s/o Fakhruddin, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the NDPS Act') and sentencing them each to undergo 10 years' RI and pay fine Rs. 1.00 lac and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional RI for one year.2. In short the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court was that on 31-5-1994, around 8.15 pm., on barrier No. 8, A.B. Road, Mhow, Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Inspector, Central Narcotics Bureau, Neemuch, accompanied by two panch witnesses and other staff members, stopped a passenger bus bearing Registration No. MP09 S 684 coming from Indore and going to Mumbai. Accused applicants who were sitting in the said bus on three different seats were taken out along with their bag and baggages and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »