Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Shivnath Prasad Shrivastava and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue of M.P., Gwa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT459
ORDERP.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is a writ petition for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated 15-3-2000 in Revision No. A-320-iii/99 (Shivnath Prasad Shrivastava and another v. State of M.P. and others) by the Board of Revenue (to be called as 'Board' only).2. Facts necessary for decision of the petition are as follows :--(a) Petitioners on 21-8-97 applied for correction of village map to show actual location of Khasra No. 192 area 0.35 acre to Collector, Rewa under Sections 32 and 107 (5) of M.P. Land Revenue Code (to be called as 'Code' only). According to them they have purchased and obtained possession of land Khasra No. 163/2 from one Ran Bahadur Singh vide sale deed dated 15-5-65. They claimed that they have constructed a house thereupon with boundary wall and a gate after taking necessary sanction from the municipal corporation. They claimed that old Khasra No. 163/2 was renumbered as Khasra No. 192 and old Khasra No. 163/1 was renumbered as Khasra No. 191. They cl...
State of M.P. Vs. Dilip and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT564
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. The State has filed this revision against the order dated 24-9-2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Sessions Trial No. 158/2001 returning the charge-sheet to the Public Prosecutor for filing the same before the Juvenile Court, Jhabua and discharged the non-applicants from his Court. 2. Learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000) came into force from 1-4-2001 whereas the incident had taken place on 14-2-2001. Therefore, the present case can not be dealt with under the old Act ie., The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986). He also submitted that the accused/non-applicants have not filed any positive material to establish that they were below 18 years of age on the date of the incident. 3. In counter to this, Shri Jaisingh appearing for the non-applicants submitted tha...
Smt. Nirmala Shrivastava and ors. Vs. Oil Selection Board (Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT177; 2002(3)MPLJ234
ORDER1. Notice (Annexure A-5) of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited stipulates allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship to Freedom Fighters. Accordingly, applications were received. Among them Shri V.P. Shrivastava and Shri K.N. Dixit were also applicants. The distributorship was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3, Shri K.N. Dixit, which was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No. 4015/1994. By order of 13-11-2000, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on two grounds, namely; the case is not covered by the guidelines for allotment of distributorship and no right flows, after the death of V.P. Shrivastava, in favour of his legal heirs.2. Shri Arvind Chouksey, learned Counsel for appellants, reiterated the submissions once raised before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 is not a Freedom Fighter. On being asked, what appellants mean by 'Freedom Fighter', explanation is one who is receiving freedom fighter's pension from the C...
Shadilal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR669(MP)
S.L. Kochar, J. 1. Against the impugned judgment dated October 8, 2001, passed by the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr. Appeal No. 37 of 1996, arising out of Cr. Case No. 3 of 1987 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, dated January 29, 1996, convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000, in default, further simple imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted for breach of Section 277 of the Income-tax Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default further simple imprisonment for one month, this revision has been filed.2. The necessary facts in a narrow compass before the courts below were that the applicant submitted his income-tax return for the year 1982-83 on December 19, 1983. In the said return, he had shown the sale of his truck bearing Registration No....
Jalamsingh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2586; 2002(3)MPHT537
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the applicant against the judgment and finding dated 19-12-2001 passed by the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr. A. No. 239/2001 arising out of the judgment and finding dated 17-8-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1283/85 affirming the conviction and sentence of three years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000)/- under Section 394, IPC and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 342, IPC.2. The prosecution case in short before the Trial Court was that on 2-2-95 at 10.30 PM, Surendra Kumar Pradhan proceeded from Hanuman Kadel Dharmashala, Indore to Kastur Talkies. On the way at a betel shop, two persons were standing from whom, he inquired about the location of Kastur Talkies. They asked him, from where he had come. The present applicant also disclosed his name and about the residence of his sister-in-law at Kishangarh, Ajmer. The applicant Jalamsingh offered him betel. After ten minutes of chewing...
Ram Narayan Vs. State of Bank of Indore and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT330; 2002(2)MPLJ585
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J.1. A money suit No. 1 1-B/86 was filed in the Court of First Additional Judge to District Judge, Vidisha on behalf of State Bank of Indore against the petitioner and another, which was fixed for appearance of the defendants on 28-8-1986. None of the defendants though served appeared on the date fixed. Consequently resulting in ex-parte decree against the petitioner and other respondent No. 2 M/s Mahalaxmi Agency. At the time of execution after about four years of passing the ex-pane decree, petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-pane decree under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, which was registered as MJC No. 7/90 and was dismissed vide order dated 22nd October, 1997, against which Civil Revision No. 624/98 was filed before the High Court. However, it was too dismissed vide order dated 6-8-98 of this Court. The present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been presented against the aforesaid order of this Court on the ground that the mandatory pro...
Vasudev Prasad and ors. Vs. Govind Prasad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT506
ORDERN.G. Karambelkar, J. 1. Heard on admission.2. This revision petition arises out of the order passed by III Civil Judge, Class II, Morena setting aside order of dismissal of suit and restoring it to its original position. The applicant/defendant is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the learned Trial Court in exercise of powers under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC has set aside the order of dismissal, although it is held that the cause for non-appearance shown by the plaintiff was not acceptable or satisfactory. According to learned counsel appearing for the applicants the Court could not pass such an order restoring the suit when it was not satisfied with the cause of non-appearance. I have gone through the order under challenge. It is true that the learned Trial Court did not accept the explanation given by the plaintiff for non-appearance on 15-3-2001 but in Paragraph 8 of the order of the Court has observed that in fact the hearing of the suit on 15th March was fixed for f...
State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors. Overruled
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3169; 2002(3)MPHT130; 2002(3)MPLJ67
R.B. Dixit, J. 1. 'We all go through life', remarked the author of 'Alpha and Omega', after observing the thinking patterns of different types of people, bearing spectacles coloured with our own taste and calling. Similarly, here in the present case, according to the prosecution, main accused Bhagwan Singh, neighbour of deceased Mata Prasad wanted to eliminate his rival, as he had filed a civil suit against him and for which purpose, he went to the extent of hiring the services of co-accused Sultan Singh, Laxman and others.2. It is further alleged that on 28th February, 1984, all the accused persons in furtherance of their conspiracy assembled on the well of accused Bhagwan Singh situated on the outskirts of the village and jointly consumed liquor there. Thereafter, at midnight, they arrived in the house of Bhagwan Singh and after scaling the roof of house, entered in the house of deceased Mata Prasad, where they found deceased Mata Prasad sleeping in the Courtyard. Accused Munna (sinc...
State of M.P. Vs. S.R. Sonwani and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT172
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Through this petition, order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 8-3-1999 has been challenged by the State. Before we advert to the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for parties, it would be necessary to mention some facts.2. Respondent was Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Govt. of M.P., posted at Sidhi. For committing some financial irregularities, departmental enquiry was started against him under Rule 16 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (for short, 'C.C.A. Rules, 66'). The respondent was visited with penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.3. Against the penalty, appeal was filed before the Governor of the State. While it was pending consideration and decision, respondent moved the Tribunal through O.A. No. 3428/98 which has been allowed by the decision impugned in this case.4. Shri Da Silva, learned Dy. A.G., submitted that respondent could not file the a...
Dwarika Prasad Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT201; 2003(3)MPLJ233
ORDERDipak Mishra, J.1. This is an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as 'the Code') for review of the order dated 24-1-93 passed in Second Appeal No. 357/92. The learned Single Judge on 24-1-94 passed the following order:--'The only contention of law raised by the learned Counsel is that the present suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent should have been held barred under Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. However, that plea is not taken in the written statement nor was raised and pressed before any of the Courts below. Belatedly, at this stage, it cannot be permitted to be revised. On all other questions, the findings recorded by the Courts below are those of facts and hence not open to reconsideration second appeal. The appeal does not raise any question of law much less a substantial one.The appeal is dismissed in limine.'2. Seeking review of the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. Umesh Shrivastava that the learned Single Judge has com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »