Madhya Pradesh Court February 2002 Judgments
Garli Bai Vs. Kantilal and Two ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC113; 2002(3)MPLJ246
S.L. Kochar, J.1. This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation filed by Garlibai, an illiterate, rustic woman aged about 35 years against the award dated 27,4.1998 passed by Addl. Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Sendhwa West Nimad (Distt. Badwani) in Claim Case No. 16/1995.2. Her case was that on 2.12.1994 she was sitting at the bus stand along with her daughter and son-in-law waiting for bus. At that juncture truck bearing registration No. MP 09-D/4737 driven by the respondent No. 2 Shyam rashly and negligently dashed her while sitting posture, resulting into fracture on her. pelvic bone. She lodged the report at Police Station Pansemal. The police registered the offence under Sections 337 and 297 of I.P.C. and filed charge sheet against the truck driver respondent No. 2 Shyam. The said truck was insured with New India Insurance Company Ltd. respondent No. 3. She claimed in total Rs. 1,00,000/ - (one lakh) as compensation. Respondents before the Claims Tribunal denied the claim o...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Tahir Vs. Ku. Tarannum and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC616; 2002(2)MPHT168
ORDERN.S. Azad, J. 1. Arguments heard.2. By order dated 27th April, 1998, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1801/97,this Court ordered grant of maintenance to respondent No. 1 under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, which stood disallowed by C.J.M. on 25th May, 1992, in Criminal Case No. 42/92 and by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 46/95.3. On an application been filed under Section 128 of the Cr.PC, registered as M.Cr.C. No. 41/2000, on behalf of respondent No. 1 and her sister Tabassum, seeking an enforcement of order of grant of maintenance, the learned C.J.M. allowed the application on 13th of June, 2000, and ordered enforcement of maintenance order, passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1801/97.4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Criminal Revision No. 176/2000, on the ground that non-applicant No. 1 so also her sister Tabassum have become major and hence they are not entitled for maintenance from the date of attaining the majority. By that time, Tabassum, the sister of non...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Panwar and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT477
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 8-1-2002 passed by Special Judge, Shajapur in Special Case No. 13/01 allowingthe application filed by the State against the applicant under Section 319, Cr.PC for proceedings against them as accused in trial.2. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 29th October, 2000, in the night, one Ramcharan Malviya was done to death. Charge-sheet was filed only against Ashok Parmar, Baijnath Singh and Manoharsingh. They are facing trial before Special Judge, Shajapur. Against these accused persons, charges were framed for the offence under Sections 120, 302, 302/34, IPC as well as under Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the charge-sheet, total 36 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Out of which 22 witnesses have been examined. Out of remaining witnesses, very few are to be examined by the prosecution as these are formal witn...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mrs. Madhu Chabra Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT45
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision has been filed by the applicant Dr. Madhu Bhatia, (Regd. Practitioner possessing a degree of M.B.B.S. with Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics) running her own Nursing Home in Indore city, against the order dated 5-1-2002 passed by VIIth ADJ in Sessions Trial No. 526/2001.2. The prosecution story as disclosed by the charge-sheet is that the engagement of deceased Babli @ Mamta for marriage was performed with Mukesh. Thereafter, deceased Babli @ Mamta came to the house of her brother-in-law Madanlal and sister Bhuribai at Indore. Accused Mahesh was having visiting terms with the deceased and had sexual intercourse, as a result of which Babli @ Mamta was pregnant. Deceased Mamta was taken to Dr. Rajesh Tripathi for termination of pregnancy by her brother-in-law Madanlal and sister Bhuribai. Dr. Tripathi had given treatment for the termination of pregnancy.3. It is further alleged by the prosecution that pregnancy was terminated by Dr. Tripathi but p...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ayub Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(84)ECC774; 2002(5)MPHT491; 2002(2)MPLJ286
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 10-12-2001, passed by the Special Judge (NDPS, Act) Mandsour in Special Criminal Case No. 69/97 whereby the Trial Court has rejected his application filed under Section 228, Cr.PC read with Section 36A of NDPS Act for sending the case to the Competent Court for trial according to law.2. Succinctly the grievance of the petitioner is that he is facing Special Case No. 69/97 pending before the Special Judge Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for convenience). From the possession of the petitioner 20 grams Opium was seized which falls within the small quantity, punishable with six months imprisonment as per the amended Act, 2001. In view of the amended Act, 2001, under Section 36A, Special Courts are having jurisdiction to try the case which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years whereas in the present case maximum punishment i...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Rusia Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2895; 2002(2)MPHT104
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J .1. Arguments heard.2. On 24th November, 2001, First Addl, Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, framed charge against this petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 138/2000, for offence punishable under Section 376(g) of the I.P.C., giving rise to this revision.3. Referring to the first information report, the statement of Seema, the prosecutrix, which is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, on 16th December, 1999, the affidavits sworn in by Seema so also her father Krishnapal Singh, and the medical report dated 5th December, 1999, it is submitted by Shri Rajendra Singh that in the F.I.R., the statement of Seema, the prosecutrix, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, affidavit of Krishnapal Singh, father of the prosecutrix so also the affidavit of Seema, this petitioner is not alleged to have committed rape on the prosecutrix Seema.4. It is also submitted by Shri Rajendra Singh that on a consideration of the report of the three doctors, who examined the prosecutrix, also,...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ishwar Alloy Steels Limited Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR587]; 2002(2)MPHT197
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. By filing this writ under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the 2 R.R.C. both issued on 30-4-2001 (An-nexures P-6 & P-7) by Additional Tehsildar, Indore for recovery of Rs. 27,205/-and Rs. 23,937/-. Facts in brief are these.2. Respondent No. 3 a lady worker was in the employment of petitioner-Company which was at all relevant time engaged in the business of manufacture of steel. Since the respondent No. 3 was not being paid her wages and also overtime wage by the petitioner as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act despite she having actually rendered services for days, she filed two applications under Sections 15(3) and 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act before the Labour Court, Indore. The Labour Court registered the applications and issued notices to petitioner (non-applicant before Labour Court). The petitioner despite notice remained ex parte and hence Labour Court after placing the petitioner ex parte recorded the evidence o...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Narayan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT225
ORDERN.S. Azad, J. 1. Arguments heard.2. On 24th November, 2001, First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, framed charge against this petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 138/2000, for offence punishable under Section 376(g) of the IPC, giving rise to this revision.3. In police statements of Ku. Seema so also her father Krishnapal Singh, which purports to have been recorded on 3rd December, 1999, this petitioner who is known as 'Nanu' also, is stated to have committed rape on the prosecutrix Ku. Seema, at the time of alleged incident and hence even if the name of this petitioner is not found stated in the F.I.R., the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, is found to have committed no illegality or impropriety in framing the charge against this petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 376(g) of the IPC.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has laid great stress on this fact that in the affidavit, which purports to have been sworn in by Ku. Seema on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT315; 2002(3)MPLJ85
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 22-9-97. She is assailing the order of her removal without issuance of show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat.2. The petitioner was appointed after following due selection process as Anganwadi Worker as per order dated 24-9-97 Annexure P-3. She was working at Anganwadi Centre, Udotpura. Petitioner submits that her removal was ordered without issuance of show-cause notice, without conduct of any enquiry, charges were not informed and outrightly she was given the order of removal. Petitioner further submits that Annexure P-6, memo dated 29-10-96. In para 2 of the said memo as contained in Annexure P-6 the procedure for removal of Anganwadi Workers and Assistants according to which it is necessary that if any Gram Panchayat is aggrieved by the functioning of Anganwadi Worker and Assistant, it has to pass a resolution and send it to the Project Officer and the...
Tag this Judgment!Asian Paints India Ltd., Indore Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax, M.P., Ind ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT78; 2002(2)MPLJ111
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-9-1993 (Annexure A) in Case No. 11/61/42-B/92 by Commissioner, Sales Tax, Indore in exercise of powers conferred under Section 42-B of M.P. General Sales Tax Act [(since repealed) for short hereinafter will be referred to as Act]. Facts in brief are these.2. Petitioner is a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints, primers, thinner etc. Petitioner is a dealer under the Act. The dispute in this case relates to a commodity manufactured and sold by the petitioner called 'Thinner'.3. A question arose before the taxing authorities under the State Sales Tax Act, as to under with entry the commodity 'Thinner' is liable to be taxed. According to petitioner in the absence of any specific entry under Schedule II, the commodity in question, i.e. Thinner will be taxable unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »