Madhya Pradesh Court April 2002 Judgments
Sanghi Brothers (indore) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Gurudev Singh Gyani and Son ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ931
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. The applicants have assailed by filing this revision against the order dated 8th May, 2001 passed by 2nd ACJM, Indore in Criminal Case No. 680/2000, thereby dismissing the application under Sections 204 and 245(2), Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 5-10-2000 by the trial Court taking cognizance against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC.2. The impugned order filed along with the revision before this Court is Annexure P/10. Sucinctly the facts for disposal of this revision are as under :NA No. 1/complainant filed a criminal complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 420. 417, 467, 471, IPC against the applicants alleging that the applicants and non-applicant No. 1 entered into an agreement for purchasing Shawel Machine Model No. 315, but did not supply the upright machine as per agreement and a defective machine was given to them. Non-applicant No. 1 had also not stood to the agreement for the purchase of repairing an...
Tag this Judgment!M.P.S.R.T. Corporation Vs. Jagadish Narayan Sharma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT83
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, petitioners in this case have challenged the order dated 21-1-1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Court, M.P., Gwalior and the order dated 17-2-1992 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Labour Court No. 3, Gwalior. By the impugned order, the Labour Court had directed petitioners to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Labour and Personnel Officer with effect from 22-7-1980. However, the order stood modified by the Industrial Court and instead of considering the claim for promotion from 22-7-1980, it has been directed that the respondent No. 1's claim for promotion be considered from 21-5-1985.2. The respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Labour Court under Section 31 read with Sections 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) inter alia contending that he is senior to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and cl...
Tag this Judgment!Hariom Singh Rajput Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT541; 2002(3)MPLJ204
ORDERRajendra Menon, J. 1. The petitioner who is a Panchayat Karmi challenges the order Annexure P-5, dated 24-1-2001 passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the powers of Secretary have been withdrawn from the petitioner.2. In pursuance to the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993scheme known as Panchayat Karmi Yojana for regulating Appointment of Panchayat Karmi was issued by the State Govt. vide Annexure P-1. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Gwalior vide order Annexure P-2. Subsequently in exercise of the powers contained in Section 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 the Collector, Shivpuri issued orders on 6-11-95 declaring the petitioner to be a Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner was thereafter discharging the duties of Panchayat Secretary.3. It is the case of the petitioner that all of sudden the petitioner was restrained from performing the duties of Panchayat Secretary without giving any order in writing and without...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Rai Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4372
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 15-1-2002 passed by the Special Judge/Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur (Smt. S. B. Rehman) declining to accept final report filed by the prosecution i.e. Special Police Establishment, Ujjain. But the same was returned back by order dated 30-11-2001 with the direction that 'after completing all legal formalities, the case should be sent to the Court for final report'. The report was returned on the ground that as per provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecuting agency did not take any step for obtaining sanction though there was a direction given by the Court below and without complying with the direction given in the past, again the final report was submitted by the prosecution. But the same was not in accordance with law when the Court had issued specific direction for completion of legal formalities i.e. sending the matter to the sanctioning authority for consideration o...
Tag this Judgment!Barelal Sahu Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT467
S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Barelal has been convicted under Section 304 (Part-II), IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.2. The bone of contention is a house in village Kunwarpura. Kallu was owner of this house. He died on 21-4-1990, Dhania is his widow and Jaikunwar is his daughter. They are entitled to inherit this house. Deceased Lallu was son of Jaikunwar. Appellant Barelal is brother of Kallu. He claimed that Kallu before his death had executed a Will in respect of this house in favour of Ramesh son of Barelal. After the death of Kallu this house was locked. In the incident which took place on 13-6-1990 Lallu died. He was shot dead by appellant Barelal. There were injuries on the persons of both the sides. Sumer is father of the deceased. He sustained two incised wounds on his head. Brijkishore is brother of the deceased. There were three minor injuries on his body. On the other hand Barelal had five injuries including an incised wound on his head. His son Asho...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandrakanta and anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT51; 2002(1)MPLJ497
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This revision is filed by the defendants against whom an injunction order is passed by both the Courts below.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as under :--Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, regarding agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 66 and 94, situated at Village Badokhar, District Morena. The said property was purchased in the name of Madangopal by registered sale-deed dated 21-7-1944. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 3 are sons of Madangopal, while respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are grand-sons of Madangopal. They are claiming their right to the suit property through their father/respondent No. 3.3. The suit is filed on the allegation that father of Madangopal, Thakurdas had retired from Calcutta Jute Mill and had received some retiral benefits at the time of his retirement. The suit property was purchased from the said amount and is thus purchased ...
Tag this Judgment!Kusumlata Vs. Lalaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1966; 2002(3)MPLJ546
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tikamgarh, in Claim Case No. 50 of 1998, dated 28.8.2000.2. Kusumlata is the owner of bus No. UP 93-C 0570. This vehicle collided with a tractor resulting in injuries to Mohandas (20) son of Lalaram and Ladkunwar. It was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Lines, Jhansi. The accident took place on 18.6.1998 at about 9.30 p.m. After sustaining injuries in this accident, Mohandas was shifted to hospital where he died 15-20 days later. Allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver Karansingh. The respondents stated that without impleading the owner and driver of the tractor, application was not maintainable, since it was also responsible for the accident. Insurance company stated that the driver did not possess licence for driving passenger vehicle, therefore, it was not liable to pay the compensation.3. Claims Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhan Singh and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT525; 2002(4)MPLJ336
S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellants Lakhan Singh and Kishore Singh have been convicted under Section 304, Part II, read with Section 34, IPC and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. During the course of the hearing of this appeal, it has been pointed out that appellant Lakhan Singh has served out the sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Court and, therefore, his appeal has not been pressed. Even so, the evidence on record has been scanned by this Court. So far appellant Lakhan Singh is concerned, his conviction under Section 304, Part II, IPC is well founded. Subedar Singh (P.W. 11) is father of deceased Putai Singh. He is the only eye-witness who has supported the prosecution case. Subedar Singh (P.W. 11) is husband of the sister of the accused persons. The incident took place on 15-7-1992 in Village Madaiya. According to Subedar Singh (P.W. 11), accused Lakhan Singh dealt a knife blow on the abdomen of Putai Singh which was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Rao Patil Vs. the Collector, Balaghat and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT175; 2002(4)MPLJ240
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated March 13, 2002, passed in Writ Petition No. 850/2002.2. The petitioner was Vice-President, Janpad Panchayat, Baihar (Balaghat). No-confidence motion was passed against him on 12-11-2001. He appealed against this decision before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, however, without success. On the date when no-confidence motion was passed, 16 members were present out of which 13 voted in favour of no-confidence motion and three against it.3. The ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not allowed to speak for or against the no-confidence motion in terms of Section 28(2) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and one the members Smt. Urmila Bharadwaj was served with notice only on 8-11-2001, four days before the meeting instead of 7 days. These questions have been examined by the learned Single Judge. It is found that the petitioner may have right to spea...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Govind and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT301; 2003(1)MPLJ59
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. This criminal revision impugns the judgment dated 19-12-95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Appeal No. 9/93, whereby order of conviction of all the applicants under Sections 325/149 and 147, IPC has been affirmed, but while not interfering with a sentence of six months R.I. each under Section 147, IPC, the learned Appellate Court has reduced the sentence of one year R.I. under Sections 325/149, IPC to six months R.I. each. However, the fine amount of Rs. 100/- each, thereunder, has been maintained2. As per narration of facts on record, the incident took place on 5-2-86 at 9 o'clock over possession of a disputed land amongst three real brothers namely, accused Yagyasharan (since released on probation) and injured witnesses, Ramvishal (P.W. 1) and Ramsakha (P.W. 2). Brijesh (applicant No. 3) is son of accused Yagyasharan and other accused, namely Ram Govind (applicant No. 1), Sambhoo Prasad (applicant No. 2) and Awadhlal (since released on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »