Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Khajanchi Film Exchange and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002MP181; 2002(3)MPHT97; 2002(3)MPLJ501
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. The petitioners are seeking relief to direct respondents to prevent infringement of the Copyright of the petitioners and also to restrain illegal screening of film titled 'Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gum'.2. The petitioners apprehended that the said cinematograph film would be duplicated and screened by the Cable T.V. Network Operators and other private operators which would be defeasive of the right of the petitioners under Copyright Act. Producers have not released video rights of the film. The petitioners submit that violation of the provision of Copyright Act by illegal and inconvenient duplication and screening of the cinematograph film has reached immeasurable proportions; video piracy is on rise and it is their common experience that in order to provide for entertainment to their customers. Cable operators indulge in pirated video cassettes screening by using their network without proper authorisation or permission from the Copyright owners; statutory power vests ...
Nathu Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT24
S.L. Kochar, J.1. Both these appeals are arising out of judgment and order dated 18-11-1994 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 185/93 convicting and sentencing the appellant No. 1 Nathu for the offences under Sections 302 and 394, IPC, sentence to RI for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) in default of payment of fine further RI for 1 year. He was also sentenced to 10 year's RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) in default of payment of fine one year RI respectively. Appellants Rajesh and Sohan were convicted for the offence under Section 414 of IPC, each sentenced to RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) in default of payment of fine RI for six months.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that Ahmed Husain (P.W. 1) was at his field on 1-4-1993 at 7 p.m. he was informed by Ranjeet (P.W. 3) about murder of his tenant Ayodhya Bai. On this information, he came to the house and while peepin...
Thakur Vyasnarayan Singh Vs. Smt. Hemlata
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC24; 2002(2)MPHT177; 2002(2)MPLJ553
ORDERN.S. Azad, J. 1. On a perusal of certified copy of order dated 23rd October, 2001, passed by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Criminal Revision No. 43/2001, (marked as Annexure P-4), filed by this petitioner challenging order dated 30th January, 2001, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sausar, in M.Cr.C. No. 31/2000, (the photostat copy of certified copy of the order is marked as Annexure P-3), so also Annexure P-3, reveals that on llth July, 2000, the non-applicant filed an application against this petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner resisted the maintainability of the aforesaid application on the grounds that the non-applicant is possessed of sufficient means for her maintenance and the inordinate delay in filing this petition is not explained.2. The petitioner being unsuccessful in both the Courts below, has now approached this Court seeking interference under inherent powers.3. Referring to the case Kuntibai (Smt.) v. Alakhram, reported ...
R.G. Food Products Vs. Additional Director, M.P. State Agricultural Ma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT271; 2002(2)MPLJ434
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1.The petitioner seeks quashment of the order of suspension of licence for a period of two months as per order dated 30-7-2001 (Annexure P-5) and order (Annexure P-8) dated 12-10-2001 passed by the Appellate Authority-respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order of suspension of licence on the solitary and singular ground that provision of Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 requires issuance of show-cause notice prior to the suspension order/cancelling licence; no such notice of intention to suspend licence was issued in the case. This fact is not in dispute. It appears on perusal of documents filed with petition that the petitioner was issued notice only with respect to evading market fee. The petitioner was never informed of the proposal to suspend the licence. It appears that pursuant to the said notice issued on 14-6-2001 for depositing of the market fee, another notice dated 18th July, 2001 was issued to the ...
Akbar Mohd. Khan and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002MP157; 2002(2)MPHT495; 2002(4)MPLJ606
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. Petitioners challenge the holding of elections of Board of Directors of M.P. Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.2. Election of the Board of Directors took place for the period of five years which is the statutory period provided under Section 49 (7-A) of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960'). This period came to an end on 3-1-2002; the period was extended by the State Government exercising the powers under Sub-section (7-AA) of Section 49 of the Act of 1960 by 12 months from the date of expiry of terms of their respective societies.3. After expiry of five years which is the original statutory period prescribed under Sub-section 7-A of Section 49 of the Act of 1960, procedure of holding the election was started as per document Annexurc A-13. Initial notice was given on 29-1-2001. As per the notified election programme dated 17-1-2001 the election procedure has commenced; the date of submitting the nomination form was 24-1-2002; sc...
Mohammed Hussan Vs. Shankerlal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC84
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Defendant No. 1 has filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P. Code against the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.4.1997 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in C.A. No. 2-B/1996 which in turn reverse the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1995 passed in C.S. No. 108/1988 by Civil Judge Class I, Badnagar. Facts of the case are these.2. Plaintiff (respondent No. 1) brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,100/-against appellant (defendant No. 1) and respondent No. 2 (defendant) towards damages. In short the case of plaintiff was that he has a petrol and diesel pump for sale of both. On 15.2.1985 the defendant No. 2, who was a driver of bus belonging to defendant No. 1 came on plaintiff's pump and dashed to petrol/diesel machines resulting in extensive damage to these machines. Due to this the plaintiff could not sell the petrol and diesel for almost 20 days. It is for this the plaintiff claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 9,100/-.3. The defendant No....
Radhelal Gupta Vs. State Bar Council of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2002MP98; 2002(2)MPHT10
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The pivotal issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition preferred by a learned member of the Bar whether the members of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to continue even after expiry of their term, as envisaged under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said issue being cardinal and dominant, I shall only confine to the aforesaid issue as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents confined to the said facet, the singular and significant case.2. The facts which have been brought on record need not be dilated upon in detail, as the facts which are essential and necessitous for disposal of this writ petition have been conceded to by Mr. N.C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh as well as for the Bar Council of India. None of the othe...
Radheshyam Khichrolia and anr. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Marketi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR699]; (2002)IIILLJ513MP; 2002(3)MPLJ288
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Common question is involved in both the writ petitions. The petitioners assail the validity of continuance of departmental enquiry after the date of superannuation in the absence of service rules providing for continuance of disciplinary proceedings after retirement.2. In W.P. No 3350/1997 petitioner Radheshyam Khichrolia submits that he retired from the service of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Marketing Federation (for short 'the Federation') on December 30, 1995; a departmental enquiry was instituted against him in the year 1992 in which the final order was passed on March 5, 1998 as contained in Annexure R/20; a recovery of Rs. 43,000 was imposed which amount was found to be misappropriated by the petitioner Radheshyam Khichrolia. This order of recovery was imposed during pendency of the present writ petition. The writ petition has been amended thereafter seeking the relief of quashment of impugned order inflicting punishment and imposing recovery. The reti...
Khemchand Motilal JaIn Tobacco Product Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1030]; (2002)IIILLJ152MP
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The petitioner assailed the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Beedi & Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966.2. The appeal filed under Section 31(2) of the Act was allowed by the appellate authority. Removal of respondent 2 was held to be illegal not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reinstatement was directed with back wages.3. Respondent 2 Ibrahim in the appeal filed before the appellate authority alleged that he was working with Khemchand Motilal Jain Tobacco Products Ltd., Sagar. He was removed on July 17, 1993. He was pressurised to submit the resignation which he did notsubmit. Similarly other employees were removed. Hence oral march order was given to the respondent 2. Respondent 2 submitted a representation before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner.4. The petitioner in the reply contended that workman did not turn up on duty of his own. The workman is a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›