Madhya Pradesh Court July 2002 Judgments
Omprakash Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4138; 2003(1)MPHT127
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. This criminal revision impugns the order dated 16-5-2002, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No. 32/2002,whereby he has framed charges against the applicant under Sections 306, 498A and 509, IPC.2. Admittedly, deceased Dharmesh and his wife Sandhya were the son and daughter-in-law of the applicant. They had committed suicide by consuming pesticide and they were declared dead in the hospital. As per materials on record, the prosecution submitted a challan for charge under Section 306, IPC on the ground that the applicant used to harass the daughter-in-law Sandhya and consequently, also used to harass his son Dharmesh. The precise allegation against the applicant is that he is a pervert who used to sodomise his domestic servant, Vishal and Vishal in turn took liberty to Sodomise Saurav, grand son of the applicant, which caused a lot of mental agony and trauma to both the deceased, being the parents of Saurav, who, resultan...
Tag this Judgment!Raisabee Vs. Shajad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC261
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 9.8.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar in Cr. Revision No. 52/2000 arising out of the order passed on 21.1.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Susner in Cr. Case No. 45/1997 thereby rejecting the application filed Under Section 127(3)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed by the non-applicant Shajad for cancellation of the order of maintenance. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision, set aside the order of the JMFC and allowed the application made Under Section 127(3)(b) of the Code.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that since the order of maintenance was passed in favour of the non-applicant Raisabee Under Section 125 of the Code by order dated 28.1.1985, now the same cannot be set aside under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Singh Chouhan Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT413
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order and resolution passed by the respondent Panchayat whereby the services of the petitioner as a Panchayat Karmi has been terminated. Initially, the petition was filed challenging the order Annexure P-1 passed at the instance of the Collector taking away the powers of the Secretary from the petitioner. Subsequently, during the pendency of the petition, as the petitioner's appointment as a Panchayat Karmi itself was cancelled, the petition has been amended and the aforesaid order has also been challenged.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in pursuance to the Panchayat Karmi Yojna formulated by the State Govt. as contained in Annexure P-2, under the provisions of Clause 2.4 of the said policy on being appointed as a Panchayat Karmi such employee is deemed to be a Secretary of the Panchayat also. After he was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi as per the aforesaid p...
Tag this Judgment!Sawal Singh Vs. Smt. Ramsakhi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT200; 2003(1)MPLJ31
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J. 1. This order will decide Civil Revision Nos. 202/2000 (Sawal Singh v. Smt. Ramsakhi and Ors.), 286/2002 (Anokhi Lal v. Surendra Kumar and Ors.) and 388/2002 (Leela Bai v. Lottan and Ors.) involving same question of law. The facts of the cases are as under :-- (Civil Revision No. 202/2000) The applicant has filed present revision challenging the order dated 18-1-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Khurai, Distt. Sagar in Civil M.A. No. 19/99, by which appeal filed by plaintiffs/respondents under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was allowed and temporary injunction issued against the applicant during the pendency of the suit. (Civil Revision No. 286/2002) This applicant has challenged the order passed by First Civil Judge, Class 2, Khandwa, in Civil Suit No. 170-A/99 by which application filed by non-applicants/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was allowed and plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint. This revision was filed on 6-2-2002 and admitted on 9-4-2002...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saits
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ169
A.K. Gohil, J.1. Appellant insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 24.6.1994 passed by Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case No. 128 of 1990, whereby it awarded a compensation of Rs. 87,000 with interest in favour of respondent No. 1 claimant ignoring the defence of the insurance company that the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.8.1990, a truck bearing registration number CIB 8194 belonging to deceased respondent No. 2 Tarachand, who was a transporter, being driven by one Mahesh s/o Ganpat Gujar, resident of Lonara village, P.S. Ooon, District Khargone, met with an accident and the claimants suffered injuries. Matter was reported to the police. Dehati Nalish, Exh. P-23-A, was written by police. The driver was arrested and arrest memo...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT186
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This second application, has been filed by the applicant for grant of bail under the Provisions of Section 437 Sub-section (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code').2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that learned Trial Court fixed the case of summoning the prosecution witnesses and their examination by order dated 22-4-2002. Thereafter, within sixty days, trial has not been completed and the applicant is in custody, therefore, in view of the Provision under Section 437 Sub-section (6), Cr.PC, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.3. The applicant has filed bail application before the Trial Court on the aforesaid ground but the learned Trial Court has dismissed the same by order dated 17-7-2002 holding that the provision under Section 437, Cr.PC will not apply in the case of the Excise Act in which more than 50 bulk litres illicit liquor is shown to be seized by the prosecution because for these offences th...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchhedi Lal Ghasita Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT405; 2003(1)MPLJ396
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Through this writ petition, order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jabalpur (CAT), dated September 7, 2000 passed in O.A. No. 716 of 2000 has been assailed. By this decision, claim of petitioner for appointment of his son on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that it is delayed and the family has survived all these years.2. Petitioner-Kanchhedilal Ghasita was working on the post of 1st Fireman in Loco Running Department, Central Railway, Jabalpur. He retired from Railway service with effect from June 20, 1988 on being declared medically unfit, and was granted pension from July 1, 1988. Petitioner has wife and two sons. He applied for appointment of his second son on compassionate ground depending on Government Notification No. GI/Dept of Personnel & Training, O.M. No. 14014/6/86-Estt. (1), dated June 30, 1987 providing for compassionate appointment of son/daughter of deceased Government servant/Government servant retired on medical ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT512
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. Shri Sakle, learned Counsel for the applicants apart from his submissions on the merit of the case also pleads that the incident dates back to lst/2nd of February, 1982 and all the accused/applicants have remained in jail for about one month and twenty eight days. Mr. Sakle further submits that presently the accused/applicant Nos. 1 and 3 may be around 72 years of age and others namely, applicant No. 2 Chammar @ Chamroo around 57 years and applicant No, 4, Chudamani may be 62 years of age. Shri Sakle also submits that there are infirmities in the statements of Ramesh (P.W. 1) and Leelabai (P.W. 3), who are the witnesses to the incident, S.H. Sisthe (P.W. 9), Head Master, who conducted the identification parade,is also not firm in his statement. Mr. Sakle also submits that from Deepchand, a gold smith, certain articles which had been pledged with him, were seized but he was not made an accused. According to Mr. Sakle, the identification was delayed and even Bin...
Tag this Judgment!Chetak Constructions Limited Vs. Om Prakash and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP145; 1998AIRSCW1653
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r), CPC by the plaintiff-company against the order by which its application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-company on the property in dispute has been rejected.2. This appeal has been transferred by the Supreme Court by order dated 20-4-1998 in Civil Appeal No. 2140 of 1998 from Indore to Jabalpur and it has been assigned to this Bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 with thirty other persons executed the agreement dated 13-9-1986 in favour of the plaintiff-company. By this agreement they covenanted to sell the property known as House Nos. 8 and 8-A (8/1 arid 8/2) situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Indore to the plaintiff-company. This property consisted of 1,00,000 sq ft. of land with two houses constructed thereon. One house was on 1500 Sq. ft...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Atmaram Daryani Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT123
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition against respondent No. 4 directing not to usurp the function of Pharmacy Council of M.P. in renewing the registration which are not first registered with Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council.2. The petitioner submits that he is the duly elected President of Madhya Pradesh Pharmacist Association and his registered office is at Jabal-pur. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council and Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Tribunal, are renewing registrations which are granted by the Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council, of which they have no authority in law.3. It is further averred that Madhya Pradesh Pharmacist Association is a body incorporated under the Madhya Pradesh Non-Trading Corporation Act, 1962. The aforesaid body represents the interest of Pharmacists which are registered with Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council in the State of Madhya Pradesh. There has been reorganisation of State of Madhya Pra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »