Madhya Pradesh Court November 2002 Judgments
Mahesh Alias Tulsi Harijan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1087
Dipak Misra, J.1. Marriage was conceived as an institution to save the race of home sapiens from the tyranny of sex, but, in the case at hand, as the factual matrix depicts, the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') succumbed to his carnal desire by giving into the inferior endowments nature and epitomized his proclivity not only marrying Sharda Bai (since deceased) but also was able to, may be forcibly or under prevailing circumstances, totally forgetting about the relationship [as at places it has appeared that the accused is the uncle of Sushila (PW-1) and Sumitra Bai (PW-4) (the informant)] first made Sumitra Bai a victim of his lascivious libido and eventually got into the wedlock and rested with the procreation of three children and thereafter as it appears that unsatiated urge of the accused, as if to live up to the concept that one feels more hungry, where one is more satiated, he wanted to have a sexual sortie with Sushila, a young girl in her teens, who...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Depot Manager, M.P.S.R.T.C.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR1020]; (2003)IILLJ351MP; 2003(2)MPHT19
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. In this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act of 1948') appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 10-8-2002 passed by Employees' State Insurance, Labour Court, Indore in Case No. 5/90 (ESI).2. Admittedly appeal under Section 82 of the Act of 1948 lies only on the ground to this Court when it involves substantial questions of law. In this case by the impugned order dated 10-8-2002 the E.S.I. Court has set-aside the recovery letter dated 17-1-1990 passed by the E.S.I. Corporation. The submission of Shri Sharan is that the letter dated 17-1-1990 is not a show-cause notice but it is an order of determination which has been passed under Section 45A of the Act of 1948. On the contrary in the reply the E.S.I. Corporation has himself treated the said letter dated 17-1-1990 as a show-cause notice. No other order has been produced on behalf of the E.S.I. Corporation showing that after the aforesaid notice of dated 17...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Bopche and anr. Vs. Darshan Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT91
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the judgment-debtor against order dated 13-1-1998 in Execution Case No. 3 of 1997 of the XIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by which it has been held that the Executing Court has jurisdiction to execute the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operativ6 Societies on a certificate granted by him.2. Section 85 (a) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 provides as under :--'Every order or award passed or decision given by the Registrar under any provision of this Act, every order passed by the appellate or revisional authorities and every order made, decision given by Liquidator, if not carried out- (a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf be deemed to be decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court, or....' Rule 55 (2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 provides asunder :--'If the amount due under the decision or award is not r...
Tag this Judgment!Narendrakumar Khandelwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(MP)553; [2003]259ITR593(MP)
S.L. Kochar, J. 1. The applicants are hereby taking exception to the order of conviction passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, in Criminal Case No. 14 of 1987 on April 12, 1996, for the offence punishable under Section 276B/278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'), thereby sentencing six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000 to applicants Nos. 1 and 2 and fine of Rs. 2,000 to applicant No. 3 I. D. one month SI as also the order dated September 21,1998, passed by learned ASJ, Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1996 thereby maintaining conviction and sentence. 2. Indisputably, applicants No. 1, Narendrakumar, and No. 2, Promodkumar, are partners of applicant No. 3, Khandelwal Steel Sales, 27, South Hathipala,Indore. The non-applicants had filed a criminal complaint against the applicants on March 30, 1987. The allegation made in the complaint was that in the previous relevant to assessment year 1986-87, the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Rai Vs. Smt. Mamta Rai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT413; 2003(2)MPLJ137
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. The petitioner seeks quashment of ex-parte order of maintenance passed by J.M.F.C., Bhopal, on 11-1-2002, in respondent's application moved under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as Code, which stood registered as R.T. No. 829/2000. 2. According to the petitioner, he was married to non-applicant No. 1 on 6-5-90, but this marriage tie stood annulled by a judgment and decree dated 18-8-99, passed by Tenth Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, in petitioner's Civil Suit No. 69-A/98, filed under Section 13(1-A) and (1-B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which shall hereinafter referred to as Act. Thereafter, non-applicant No. 1 filed a petition under Section 25 of the Act, against this petitioner, seeking the relief of permanent alimony, which stood registered as M.J.C. No. 96/99, and disposed of in his favour on 31-3-2001, by Fourth Addl. District Judge, Bhopal. The learned Fourth Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, ordered the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. Somat Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT180
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 5th July, 2001, passed by J.M.F.C., Rehli, in M.Cr.C. No. 10/2001, wherein, on account of non-payment of maintenance by this petitioner to the non-applicants, as ordered on 7th August, 1999, in M.Cr.C. No. 7/98, registered on non-applicants application, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as Code, learned J.M.F.C. ordered the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3500/- to non-applicant No. 1 else, he would have to undergo an imprisonment for a period of 5 months. The petitioner further seeks quashment of order dated 10th April, 2002, wherein, his challenge to aforesaid order dated 5th July, 2001, stood negatived by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Camp Rehli, in petitioners' Cr. Rev. No. 13/2002.2. As per photocopy of certified copy of order dated 7th August, 1999, passed by J.M.F.C., Rehli, in M.Cr.C. No. 7/98, this petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance to non-appl...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Housing Board and anr. Vs. Satish Kumar Raizada
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR553(MP); 2003(1)MPHT205; 2003(2)MPLJ346
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the M.P. Housing Board (judgment-debtor) against the order by which its objections in the proceedings for enforcement of award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') have been rejected. 2. It is not in dispute that the M.P. Housing Board awarded a contract to the respondent/decree-holder on 7-10-1992 for construction of 28 HIG Houses at Kohefiza, Bhopal for Non-Resident-Indians. The contractor was asked to carry out certain works which were not included in the original contract by the Engineer-in-Charge of the work. The contractor as per Clause 13 of the contract was bound to carry out those works. The contractor did those works and completed the construction of the houses. Then arose the dispute for the extra work done by the contractor. 3. Clause 13 of the Contract provides : 'in the event of a dispute the decision of the Deputy Housing Commissioner of the circle shall be...
Tag this Judgment!Century Textile and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC610; 2003(154)ELT52(MP)
A.K. Gohil, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following, among other, reliefs in the petition:(i) An order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorary calling for records of the case and after examining validity and legality of the same, the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal No. E/1805, 1806/2000-D dated 7.2.2001 (Annexure-P/12) be quashed; &(ii) An appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents not to act upon the finding of the Tribunal given as per order dated 7.2.2001 (Annexure-P/12).2. Brief facts for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Co. is a duly incorporated Company. It is a 100% export oriented unit situated in the industrial backward district of Khargone for manufacture of cotton yarn and/or blended yarn. At present the petitioner Co. is engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn and Denim fabric, which is made out of the cotton yarn produced ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saroj Vs. Mohd. Ishak and 2 ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC251
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on two grounds: firstly that the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving licence; and secondly the Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant.2. There is no dispute on the other facts of the case. There is also no dispute that the driver Mohd. Ishak was having a driving licence to drive Tempo only. Copy of the driving licence is Ex. D/1. He was examined as DW-1. He has admitted in his statement that though he was having a driving licence but that was for driving a private Tempo whereas on the date of accident he was driving a commercial vehicle and there was no endorsement on the said licence about driving commercial vehicle and on this ground Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from its liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir JaIn Vs. Govindbhai Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT450
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. By this common order, both the aforesaid Misc. Criminal Cases are being disposed of.2. By orders dated 30-8-2001 passed in Criminal Case Nos. 1287/1999 and 1288/99, the learned JMFC, Jabalpur, turned down this objection of the petitioner that the complaints are not filed by the competent person on behalf of the company. The petitioner's challenge to aforesaid order, in his Criminal Revision Nos. 379/2001 and 380/2001, stood negatived by third ASJ, Jabalpur, on 17-4-2002, and hence, the petitioner seeks quashment of complaints registered as Criminal Case Nos. 1287/99 and 1288/99.3. The respondent filed each of the aforesaid complaints against this petitioner, in the Court of Smt. Usha Shrotriya, JMFC, Jabalpur, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, registered as Criminal Case Nos. 1287/99 and 1288/99, with these allegations that as consideration of the goods which are produced by respondent M/s. J.P. Patel (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., Jabalpur (herei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »