Madhya Pradesh Court July 2002 Judgments
indra Singh and ors. Vs. Ramcharan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP144; 2002(4)MPLJ563
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. Heard.2. This revision is filed by the judgment-debtor against whom a decree is passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class 1, Gohad on 26-2-98. The Decree-holder filed an execution in the Court of Civil Judge Class-2. Gohad for executing the said decree. The petitioner-judgment-debtor has raised an objection about the maintainability of the execution proceedings before the Civil Judge Class 2. Gohad. The same objection is rejected by the executing Court by the impugned order against which this revision is filed.2. According to the petitioner, since the decree is passed by the Addl. Civil Judge Class I, Gohad. the Civil Judge Class-2 has no jurisdiction to execute the decree. For this purpose, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the provisions of Order 21, Rule 10. CPC. which lays down that an application for execution lies to the same Court which has passed the decree. The snld rule reads as under :'Order 21. Rule 10 : Application for execution.--W...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand and Hariram Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT49; 2003(2)MPLJ43
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition petitioners are praying for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue notices under Sub-section(2) of Section 12 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioners submit that the award was passed, but notice of passing the award was not issued. Thus, they have been deprived of their statutory right under Section 12 of the Act and consequently of seeking reference under Section 18. It is the further grievance the petitioners that payment has not been made of the additional compensation at 12% on the market value, and 30% solatium under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) and interest at 9% under Section 28 of the Act. These payments cannot be denied. Land was acquired for the purpose of construction of dam for supply of water to city of Sagar. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 2-12-97; declaration under Section 6 was published on 23-1-98 after passing of the award (P-4); notices have not been given under Sub-section (2) of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrabhan Sisodia Vs. General Manager, Personal and Services Wing an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT334
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner complains that his application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme was wrongly rejected by the respondent Bank. He, therefore, says that his V.R.S. application should have been considered and allowed.2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in this matter. It emerges from the record that the respondent Bank rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are in contemplation against the petitioner for certain irregularities and lapses committed by him while he was working in one Branch, situated at Khairalanji Branch. Clause 3 of Annexure P-l, attached to Voluntary Retirement Scheme in clear terms provides that those employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated, or pending, or those employees who are under sus...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Narayan Vs. Shanti Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC75; 2004ACJ1157
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging an award of Rs. 65,000/- passed in favour of claimants, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. The facts of the case are that one Manoj, aged about 15 years died in the motor accident on 7.5.1992 at about 10 p.m. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the mother and father of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 65,000/-as compensation for the death of Manoj. The present appellant Laxmi Narayan is the owner of the tractor, involved in the accident and respondent No. 1 Dhansingh was the alleged driver of the said vehicle.3. The case of the appellant is that he never permitted Dhansingh to drive the vehicle and, therefore, he cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the act of Dhansingh. According to appellant, Dhansingh on his own was driving the vehicle at the time of accident without any authority and, therefore, award passed against the owner should be set aside.4. It is an admitted fact that the ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Indore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(MP)227; [2002]257ITR463(MP)
N.K. Jain, J.1. Both these income-tax references have been heard as connected matters, as not only the parties in both the cases are the same but common questions of law are involved in both these cases. This order shall dispose of both these references (I. T. R. Nos. 58 of 1997 and 60 of 1997).2. These references are made at the instance of the assessee, the State Bank of Indore, and arise from two similar orders passed in I. T. A. Nos. 470/Ind of 1988 and 471/Ind of 1988, dated December 6, 1994, for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, whereby the following questions, said to be questions of law, have been referred to this court for answer :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the rejection of method of accounting of interest on sticky loans credited to 'Interest Suspense Account' consistently followed by the assessee in the assessment years 1961-62 onwards and accepted by the Department ?(ii) Whether,...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT7
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. Shri Datt appearing for the applicant assails the impugned order whereby the learned Special Judge, Hoshangabad, has framed charges under Sections 294 and 506 and has discharged the applicant from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to Mr. Datt, on the basis of materials on record, if the applicant/accused has been discharged in respect of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he could not have been proceeded against, again on that basis under Sections 294 and 506, IPC. Mr. Datt submits that the complainant, a member of SC/ST community, was also a member of Panchayat and the quarrel is said to have originated in hot exchange of words over some financial matter concerning a social welfare scheme. Mr. Datt further submits that the class of society to which, the applicant and the complainant, belonged does not mind ut...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal JaIn Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR775]; 2003(2)MPHT21
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ, the petitioner seeks to challenge a Notification, dated 28-3-2001, issued by the State Government under Section 9 of the M.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1958. The Notification says that no Shops or Commercial Establishments situated in the local area of Ratlam shall be opened earlier than 8 a.m. and be kept open later than 7.00 p.m. It is this Notification which is under challenge in this writ, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Any Notification which is issued in the interest of public at large, can not be questioned as arbitrary exercise of powers. If, the State has felt that shops should not be opened earlier than 8.00 a.m. and should not be kept openafter 7.00 p.m. on any day, then I fail to understand what is that kind of arbitrariness that could be pointed out in such a decision. It is a direction issued in the interest of public at large and therefore, I do not consider it to be a fit case for admission an...
Tag this Judgment!Babariya and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT127; 2002(3)MPLJ463
S.L. Kochar, J.1. By this common judgment, both the aforementioned Cr. Appeal Nos. 438/96 (Babariya and Ors. v. State) and 463/96 (Puniya and Ors. v. State of M.P.) are being decided.2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 16-5-96 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Dhar in Sessions Trial No. 166/94, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 148 and ds 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them each to undergo R.I. for six months with fine Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for three months and to undergo imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R,I. for six months respectively. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. The total amount of fine of Rs. 22,500/-, on its realisation, has been ordered to be paid to the widow or in her absence to the elder son of the deceased.2. Succinctly, the prosecution case before the Trial Court wa...
Tag this Judgment!Khatunbai @ Mehraj Bi Vs. Gani Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT180
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. The applicant has filed this revision petition against the order dated 8-5-2001 passed by IIIrd AST, Dewas in Criminal Revision No. 98/2000 wherein learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 25-7-2000 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 75/97 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bagli, District Dewas thereby granting maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, that the respondent/ wife, on 22-12-1997, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC for grant of maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bagli, District Dewas. According to her, she was legally wedded wife and gave birth to 2 sons named Sabbir and Shakir after marriage. The non-applicant/husband was ill-treating her for demand of dowry. He turned his wife out from the house after beating and ill-treating. As he wanted to marry with other woman, after turning his wife out of the house, he got married with another woman. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidhyaram Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT336; 2002(4)MPLJ532
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner by this petition has called in question the orders issued by the respondents vide Annexure P-3, dated 2-11-98, Annexure P-6, dated 20-11-2000 and Annexure P-7, dated 10-4-2001. The short facts giving rise to the present dispute is that the petitioner's father was holder of N.P. Bore Rifle No. 8536/1937 which was duly licenced by the competent authority. Because of a criminal case registered against the petitioner and his father, the said rifle was seized by the Police, Morena. The petitioner and his father were put to trial and the 3rd A.S.J., Morena vide order dated 2-4-92 (Annexure P-l) acquitted the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the trial, the father of the petitioner had expired. In the judgment the learned Court had ordered that on submitting a valid licence by the petitioner within three months the rifle in question shall be returned to him and further directed to send the same to the Collector in case the petitioner did not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »