Madhya Pradesh Court October 2002 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.
Jamna Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT77; 2003(1)MPLJ296
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Petitioner was Assistant Teacher. He was placed under suspension on 16-2-1990 since he was arrested in a criminal case punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by Sessions Court on 27-1-1992 and sentenced for life imprisonment. Through appeal, he challenged the judgment which was decided by this Court on 4-3-1998. His appeal was partly allowed. He was convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment.2. The petitioner is claiming subsistence allowance till 4-3-1998 when his appeal was decided. His submission is that his conviction could not be taken final until the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, he is to be under suspension and entitled to subsistence allowance. State AdministrativeTribunal did not find favour with this claim and rejected O. A. No. 2099 of 1998 by order dated 12-10-1999. For rejecting the claim, SAT placed reliance on two Apex Court decisions in Deputy Director of E...
Niket Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPLJ297; [2004]52SCL211(MP)
Arun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner is declared to be a sick industrial company under Section 31 of SICA [Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 9-5-2000. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have initiated the proceedings for recovery of sales tax in spite of the directions issued by the State Government as per order P. 3 dated 22-11-2001. The recovery has been initiated as per orders P. 5, P. 6, P. 7, P. 8 and P. 10 which are assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.2. Petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner became sick industrial company and was so declared by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) as per order P. 1 dated 9-5-2000. Petitioner submitted rehabilitation package along with various relief and concessions proposed is under examination of the operating agency appointed by BIFR as well as the Government of M.P., the Department of Commerce and Industries. The...
North Roadlines Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT69
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid petition and the prayer made is for quashing the order, Annexure P-3, dated 20-9-2002 by which the action is being proposed to be taken against the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 45-C of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Further prayer made is to direct the respondents to release the truck and goods of the petitioner, illegally detained with effect from 13-9-2002 and pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-per day for illegally detaining the truck and goods.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of transportation of goods by trucks. The petitioners owns a truck bearing registration No. MP-09/KC-1277. According to the petitioner the said truck was coming from Nagpur to Urai (U.P.), and was passing through Gwalior. In the said truck, goods were loade...
Jagdish and anr. Vs. State Bank of Indore and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC400
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no substance in this writ. It is nothing but an abuse of process in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since, the limits of Article 226 are not defined and are extraordinary in nature and therefore, it is usually abused rather than to invoke properly.2. It is against what is called inaction complained against the Bank for not doing the work of petitioners for which they have approached the Bank. I fail to appreciate whether Courts monitor day today working of any Bank, whether it involves any judicial act, whether it involves infraction of any fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India, whether it involves any violation of personal liberty? The answer is emphatically in No. It is for the petitioners to knock the doors of the authorities of the respondent-Bank and ensure disposal of their work.3. Petition, thus, fails a...
Basant Kumar Vs. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP203; 2003(3)ARBLR222(MP); 2003(2)MPHT5; 2003(2)MPLJ257
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The question for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether after availing the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and having obtained an order in his favour granting compensation, petitioner can have recourse to proceeding for arbitration as per arbitration clause in agreement, being dissatisfied with the amount granted by the District Consumer Forum. 2. Petitioner owns Mahendra Jeep 1995 Model which is insured with the respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd.; claim was lodged by the petitioner with respect to the damage caused to the Jeep in an accident on 4-1-99; the surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs. 12,060/-; petitioner claimed the damage to the extent of Rs. 67,764/-. Complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum which was resisted by the Insurance Company; the District Forum after considering the material on record and the fact that the chassis was not in a good condition which was the cause of the acciden...
Tarkeshwar Prasad and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3686; 2003(3)MPLJ109
Ajit Singh, J.1. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, namely; Tarkeshwar and Ram Pyari, have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 222/ 93 by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Co-accused Bharti, who is daughter of the appellants, has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.2. From the first information report, Ex. P-14, and from perusal of the impugned judgment, the prosecution story, as unfolded, is as under :--Appellants were father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Poonam Dubey who was married to their son Arvind Dubey on 17-6-90. Arvind Dubey is employed as a Clerk in the Indian Army and as such he was posted at Siligudi at the time of incident. A child was born to them at Jabalpur on 25-1-92. After the birth of child appellant No. 2, Ram Pyari, started demanding Rs. 10,000/- from her for the purposes of celebrating 'Chowk' Ceremony of the chil...
Mohanlal Vs. Rampratap
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT66
ORDERS.B. Sakrikar, J.1. Defendant/applicants have directed this revision against the order dated 6-2-2001 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Mandsaur in C.S. No. 60-A/96 whereby a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction of the Trial Court is decided in favour of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff.2. The facts of the case in brief necessary for the disposal of this revision are :-- that in Village Kuchdod, District Mandsaur some agricultural lands are recorded in the name of respondent No. I/plaintiff as 'Bhumiswami' rights and the adjacent lands are recorded in the name of present applicants as 'Bhumiswami'. As per plaintiffs' allegation non-applicant/plaintiffs applied for measurement and installation of boundary marks of the lands recorded in his name in the Court of the Tehsildar concerned under Section 129 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. It is stated that because of the non-cooperation of the applicants the petition of the respondent/plaintiffs for installation of the boundary marks...
Gendalal Vs. Shankarlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC301; 2004ACJ357
A.K. Gohil, J.1. The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15.4.1999 passed in Claim Case No. 5 of 1997 by the IV Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, whereby the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability and declined to award interest on the amount of compensation, on account of delay by the claimant.2. Admittedly, the incident took place from tractor-trolley Nos. MPI 8837 and MPI 8856. It is also admitted on record that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by one Kailash and was carrying 'baraat'. The learned Tribunal exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes and not for the purposes of carrying 'baraat' or passengers in the trolley. It is also not in dispute that one Kailash s/o Gendalal was a cyclist who was hit by the tractor-trolley and died on the spot, in the said a...
Shri Chekka Rama Gopal Vs. the Board of Directors, M.P. State Civil Su ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT61
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30-6-2000 (Annexure P-37) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He has also challenged the order dated 14-4-2001 of the appellate authority by which the penalty of 'dismissal' has been altered to 'removal from service'.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Financial Advisor in Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Bhopal, by order dated 23-6-1987. Decision to appoint him on this post was taken by the Board of Directors of this Corporation in the meeting held on 12-3-1987.The appointment order dated 23-6-1987 (Annexure P-3) was issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The post held by the petitioner was redesignated as Executive Director (Finance). By resolution dated 7-12-1995 (Annexures P-13 and P-14) the Board of Directors delegated the power of 'Imposition of penalty etc.' to the Managing ...
G.P. Pathak Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT174
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the accused against order dated 7-1-2002 of the Special Judge, Sagar.2. This revision was listed before another Bench, In the order-sheet dated 3-9-2002 it is recorded : 'List the matter before some other Bench'. On the note-sheet put up by the Registry on 9-9-2002 Hon'ble the Chief Justice directed for posting this matter before this Bench. The petitioner through his Counsel submitted an application on 13-9-2002 (LA. No. 1331 of 2002) for transferring it to the same Bench where it was listed earlier. The direction of the Chief Justice in such matters is final and that cannot be questioned before the Bench where the case is listed in pursuance of such direction.3. A charge-sheet under Section 173, Cr.PC has been filed before the Special Judge, Sagar in which the petitioner is accused of the charge under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for being found in possession of the assets disproportiona...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »