Madhya Pradesh Court August 2002 Judgments
A.K. Kinra Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT304
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner assails grant of contract to Damodar Ropeway and Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., for construction of bi-cable ropeway at 'Maa Sharda Temple', Maihar, managed by Shri Sharda Prabandhan Committee, Maihar, District Satna.2. Petitioner is the Managing Director, Ropeway and Resorts Private Ltd., Kolkata. He submitted a tender pursuant to a notice inviting tenders. The last date for submitting tender forms was 1-3-2001. In all three tenderers submitted their tenders, i.e., M/s. Ropeway and Resorts Private Ltd., M/s. Damodar Ropeway and Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited. The tenders were invited for bi-cable ropeway system. The tenders were to be submitted in three envelopes, one containing the security deposit, the second Technical proposals and the third containing the financial estimate. The third envelope containing financial estimate was deposited in Sub Treasury, Maihar, District Satna. After evaluation of the two envelope...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Tiwari and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT55; 2003(2)MPLJ570
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. The petitioners seek quashment of proceedings of Special CaseNo. 7/2000, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Sagar, against these petitioners and one S.C. Jain, for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. As per prosecution, for the appointments of Shiksha Karmi, Grade III, against the vacancies available in Janpad Panchayat, Banda, in respect of which the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, so also Selection Rules, 1998, were applicable, petitioner Raj Kumar participated as Chairman of Selection Committee along with Mukundilal (petitioner) and S.C. Jain, as members, wherein, the sons of these three also appeared as candidates, and were selected.3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid proceedings of Special Case No. 7/2000, are already quashed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1389/2001, so far as co-accused/petitioner of M.Cr.C. No. 1389/2001, Raj...
Tag this Judgment!Loan Karan JaIn Vs. Ramesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar Timarni and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT53
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. Arguments heard.2. On consideration of certified copy of order dated 13th October, 2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Harda, on bail application of this petitioner and two others namely Jitendra Kumar and Dhiraj Kumar, it is noted that on a complaint filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, cognizance for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the IPC was taken against this petitioner on 16th July, 1997, and on the same day, the petitioner was ordered to be called by bailable warrant of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This bailable warrant could not be served for a long time and therefore, the same was published in daily newspaper for petitioner's attendance on 14th December, 1999. Thereafter, on 27-1-2000, Shri R.C. Sharma, Advocate, appeared in Court on behalf of this petitioner to whom, the copy of the complaint and documents filed along with the complaint were supplied. It was also directed that the petitioner be kep...
Tag this Judgment!Sarita Vs. Dilip
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC393
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. No revision is maintainable against the rejection of amendment application which is an interlocutory order. The Trial Court has also rejected the application filed Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code about the maintainability of the suit. The husband has filed suit for declaration that he has obtained divorce as per the prevailing custom in his caste which is fully established. The Trial Court has held that such a suit is maintainable placing reliance on the decision in the case of P. Mariammal v. Padmanabhan, AIR 2001 Madras 350.2. Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that this Court has also taken similar view in the order passed on 7.8.2002 in Civil Revision No. 160 of 2002, Sandhya @ Divya and Ors. v. Dinesh Kushzvaha.3. Accordingly it is held that the suit is maintainable and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the objections filed on behalf of the applicants/defendants.4. Consequently this revision has no merits and is hereby dismissed with no order as ...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT338; 2003(3)MPLJ256
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The main grievance of Mr. Ruprah is set up against framing of a charge under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (for short 'the Act'). Mr. Ruprah submits that no proceedings can be instituted under Section 39 of the Act without following the conditions contained in Section 50 of the Act, Sections 39 and 50 of the Act on reproduction read as under:--'39. Theft of energy.-- Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees, or with both; and if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of emergency by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.''50...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Sood and ors. Vs. Smt. Roopali and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT51; 2003(3)MPLJ48
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. The petitioners seek the benefit of anticipatory bail against whom the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh, has ordered issuance of warrant of arrest, after taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, on a private complaint filed by complainant Smt. Roopali (respondent No. 1). The aforesaid facts are found dictated by the IInd ASJ, Tikamgarh, who refused anticipatory bail to these petitioners, on 21-5-2002 (certified copy is on record).2. The grant of anticipatory bail is being opposed on the ground of issuance of warrant of arrest by the Trial Court, and it is submitted that the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be claimed by these petitioners, who may surrender to the Court's custody and seek regular bail.3. In agreement with the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (C.B.I.), reported in 1997 Cr.LJ 961, and Puran Singh v. Ajit Singh and another, reported in 1985 Cr.LJ 89 (both D.B. decision cases), it is found explained by t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal and anr. Vs. Saukhilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP185; 2003(1)MPHT419
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Appellants have filed present appeal against order of remand dated 15-12-97 by which learned Lower Appellate Court while remanding the matter has afforded an opportunity to the respondents to affix Court-fee on counter-claim with certain observations. Learned Trial Court has not considered the counter-claim only on the ground that the respondents have not paid Court-fee on it.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that Lower Appellate Court committed an error in allowing respondents/defendants to pay the Court-fee on counter-claim and wrongly exercised its power giving opportunity to the respondents to pay the Court-fee and enlarged the scope. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court has exercised its power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has done the justice in the case while affording opportunity to the respondents to pay the Court-fee on counterclaim.3. From p...
Tag this Judgment!Prabha Constructions Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC290; 2003(2)MPHT32; 2002(4)MPLJ455
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Petitioner by this petition, has called in question the order (Annexure P-1), issued by the Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Division No. 2, Orchha, by which, the acceptance of tender submitted by the petitioner, has been cancelled and the security amount has been forfeited.2. Petitioner contractor, doing work on contract basis, submitted its tender in pursuance to tender notice dated 24-2-2001, for the purpose of construction of earth work and other works in Rajghat Canal Project. The tender notice is filed as Annexure R-1. According to the aforesaid notice, registered contractors were entitled to submit their tender. It is the case of petitioner that in pursuance to the aforesaid, he had submitted his tender, his tender being the lowest, was accepted and in fact, acceptance of tender was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18-5-2001 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner was called for the purpose of executing the agreement within 7 days. It is the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Jandel Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1044
ORDERP.C. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner had lodged an FIR on 23-10-97 and P.S. Gijora had registered a Crime No. 63/97 under Sections 341, 294, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short). Anyhow, neither any charge-sheet was filed nor any final report was submitted by the Police. Hence the petitioner filed a criminal complaint on 28-10-98 in Criminal Court under Sections 341, 294, 324, 323, 506, Part II of the Code. The magistrate after usual enquiry took cognizance on 6-4-1999 under Sections 294 and 323 of the Code and the case was committed to the Court of Session as there was a cross case which was triable by the Court of Session. The Addl. Sessions Judge on 9-2-00 after hearing both the parties held that the criminal complaint was time barred and no cognizance under Sections 323 and 294 of the Code could be taken after elapse of a period of one year as both these offences were punishable at the most with imprisonment for one year.2. The grievance of the petitioner has been tha...
Tag this Judgment!Superpack Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT327; 2002(4)MPLJ572
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition is seeking quashment of the order (P-12) dated 4-4-2001 issued by the Superintendent Engineer, Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, Chhindwara, and the bills (P-10 and P-11) dated 16-8-2001. This challenge is based on the ground that Captive Power Policy, 2001 issued on 20th February, 2001, by the State Government is not applicable with respect to the petitioner Unit.2. As per Captive Power Policy, 2001, captive power plant shall have to be used by the consumer to whom permission is granted. After issue of this notification, he shall be bound to draw atleast 50% of electricity from Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board out of its total monthly requirement. The bills have been raised by the M.P: Electricity Board applying new policy in case of petitioner.3. The petitioner is a company having its factory at Village Sausar, District Chhindwara, manufacture HDPE/PP Woven Fabrics, Bags and Master Batches, For running of the factory, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »