Madhya Pradesh Court September 2002 Judgments
Seth Mohanlal Hiralal Construction Company Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT293
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the decision of the respondents in disqualifying him for pre-qualification stage under the fresh advertisement issued on 6-2-2002 whereas for the same work petitioner was earlier qualified and was the lowest tenderer. A decision was taken to switch over for inviting the tender in Form A as per decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee on 28-1-2002.2. The petitioner M/s. Seth Mohanlal Hiralal Construction Company, is a partnership firm. Petitioner is a registered A-5 class contractor with the Public Works Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner is working as contractor of the Bridge Zone since 20 years and have constructed four major Railways Over Bridges (hereinafter referred to as 'ROB'). Petitioner claims to have constructed second Longest Bridge of the State of Madhya Pradesh on Tawa River S.H. 22 Bawai, Hoshangabad Road. Petitioner claims that he has got clean and superb past track r...
Tag this Judgment!Netram Alias Goyal Babu Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT152
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'the IPC') and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life and six months respectively by the judgment dated 2-7-1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No. 58/90.2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 9-2-1990 at 8.30 p.m. accused bought betel from the shop of deceased's wife Lachhi Bai, which was not found palatable to him. He asked for another betel which she refused. Consequently accused hurled filthy abuses. Lachhi Bai called her husband-Ramdayal to whom the appellant gave a knife blow which landed on his chest. The matter was reported to the police by Phuiwar Singh (P.W. 4) in form of FIR (Ex. P-5) and accordingly the criminal law was set in motion. On 11 -2-1990 accused was arrested and at his instance a knife was recovered from the bushes, the seizure memo of which...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh @ Ramu Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3678; 2002(4)MPHT146
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Convicted accused Ram Singh @ Ramu has preferred this appeal against the judgment and sentence dated 3rd April, 1992 passed by Sessions Judge, Sconi in Sessions Trial No. 129/91 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass, in brief the case of prosecution is that in the Village of Dangitola (Peeparwani) there is a field of Chittor Singh, near this field, at 12 in the noon the appellant Ram Singh @ Ramu was beating the deceased by lathi, at that time, Chittor Singh arrived there for warding off his cows, upon seeing that appellant is beating the deceased Chandulal, he asked not to beat and also tried to intervene, whereupon appellant pushed Chittor Singh and also gave threat to kill. The appellant gave repeated blows of lathi to Chandulal till he fell down. Chittor Singh informed the incident to Khuman Singh (P.W, 1) who is the son of the deceased Chandulal, thereafter Khum...
Tag this Judgment!Bhajanlal Kahar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT324
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant Bhajanlal has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506B, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, five years, seven years and two years respectively. He has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count. (Section 366 is only an aggravated form of the offence under Section 363, IPC and therefore there could not be conviction under both the sections).2. It is not in dispute that Pinki alias Sumanbai (P.W. 1) is daughter of Shankerlal (P.W. 4) and Sarojbai (P.W. 6). They are residents of Village Madgula. Accused Bhajanlal is aged about 25 years and he lives in front of their house. The prosecutrix was sleeping in the intervening night of 11th and 12th June, 2000 in her house but she was found missing in the morning. The accused was also not in his house. Both of them went to Village Kanhargaon and they were there in the house of the sister of the accused for about three days.3. The prosecution case is that the prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT416
Dipak Misra, J. 1. The petitioner, hardly two scores and tour, being public spirited, knocked at the doors of this Court as pro bono publico, being moved by the catastrophe and cataclysm of the earthquake that shook the city of Jabalpur and its nearby places in the later part of the last millennium and sought for issuance of certain directions so that natural calamity does not sweep away the man built civilisation and cause insurmountable disaster. The specific reliefs, which have been sought, shall be adverted to at the appropriate stage.2. The facts as have been uncurtained are that on 22-5-1997 the city of Jabalpur and its surrounding areas were rocked by an earthquake. The earthquake occurring on that day was recorded as one of the major earthquakes caused in India measuring 6.0 Richter Scale. Hardly before the nightmarish and terrifying effect of the earthquake had vanished from the mind of the people, on 17-10-2000 an earthquake of mild intensity again rocked the similar area and...
Tag this Judgment!indore Loha Vyapari Association Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Cour ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT527
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case. I am inclined to allow this writ and while quashing the order dated 1-2-2001 (Annexure P-13), as also dated 21-8-1996 (Annexure P-9), passed by Labour Court, Indore, remand the case to Labour Court for deciding the same on merits.2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. An Industrial Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act was made at the instance of respondent No. 2 to Labour Court, Indore for deciding the legality and validity of termination order of respondent No. 2. It was seized of by the Labour Court as Case No. 4/ID/Ref./94. Notice of this reference was sent to petitioner as also to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 appeared but petitioner did not and hence Labour Court proceeded to decide the reference on merits by placing petitioner ex parte treating them to have been served. Eventually an award was passed on 21-8-1996 (Annexure P-9) dire...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mangleshwar Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT140; 2003(2)MPLJ44
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. Applicant Dr. Mangleshwar Singh is aggrieved by the order dated 3-10-96 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in S.T. No. 79/95, whereby he has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC.2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass. In brief the case of.the prosecution is that on 26-2-95 at the house of Raghunath Singh arrangement of marriage of his son was going on, Raghunath Singh found that the currency notes of Rs. 800/- were missing from the pocket of his coat, he inquired from his brother applicant-Dr. Mangleshwar Singh who raised suspicion upon deceased Hiralal, who pleaded ignorance. Deceased Hiralal was serving in the house of Raghunath. Further the case of prosecution is that applicant admonished Hiralal and threatened him by saying that a report shall be lodged in police regarding theft committed by him, thereafter Hiralal went to the house of his sister Kalui and uncle Ram Ganesh and brought them...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderlal and ors. Vs. Gopal Sharan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT330
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This revision is filed by the judgment-debtor against an order whereby the Executing Court has directed them to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against the present petitioners. In the said suit relief for possession was not asked by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff alleged that he is in possession of the suit property. Ultimately, a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has not prayed for the relief of possession in the plaint itself, the decree is silent on the point of possession. After obtaining the decree for specific performance the respondent filed execution proceedings in which he has claimed not only the relief of execution of the document but also for possession.3. The petitioners objected to the relief of possession. The said objections were overruled by the Executing Court and t...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Lalwani and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP169; 2003(1)MPLJ196
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioners' grievance is of refusal to give water connection in the premises of the petitioners by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, on the ground that property tax has not been deposited and dispute about it is pending consideration.2. Petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate. Petitioners are the joint owners of the house constructed on a portion of land which is part of the old bungalow numbered by the respondent Corporation as 1605, Civil Lines, Jabalpur. Petitioners constructed the house as per the plan sanctioned on 5-2-1997. The house was constructed before 5-2-2000. Petitioners submit that under Chapter XVI of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') it is the duty of the Corporation to provide for supply of water,. The Corporation is empowered to supply water from its water works on an application being made to it under Section 221 of the Act. Section 225 of the Act provides for circumstances under which water supply to the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. State Electronics Development Corp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: [2004]267ITR405(MP)
1. Heard Shri Rohit Arya, counsel for the appellant, on admission. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction under Section 80I is to be granted on the gross total income and not on the income reduced by the amount allowed under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question on which the appeal has been filed is no longer res integra. In J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1998]229ITR123(MP) , a Division Bench of this court has ruled that deduction under Section 80I is to be allowed on the gross total income and not the balance of the income after deducting the relief under Section 80HH. Since the question has already been answered by this court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly/dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »