Madhya Pradesh Court January 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prabhudas Kishordas Tobacco and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP101; 2004(1)MPLJ38
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing the order (Annexure-I) dt. 6-10-1990 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, the order (Annexure-J) passed by the Conservator of Forest on 6-10-1990 and the order (Annexure-K) passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 4-4-1991 and also the seizure memo of truck No. CPQ-5990.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a manufacturer of Bidi. Petitioner No. 2 Shri Munna Khan is the owner of the Truck No. CPQ-5990 and is a transporter. Tendu leave being forest produce, the State of Madhya Pradesh has framed Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'). Similar Acts are enacted in other States. Petitioner submits that the operation of the Act is confined to the particular State concerned. Adhiniyam of Madhya Pradesh is a complete Code in itself. Section 5 put restriction on purchase or transport of tendu leaves except in the manner pre...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ravindra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4361; 2003(3)MPLJ460
S.L. Jain, J.1. Appellant/State has filed this appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25-6-1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Sessions Trial No. 41/90 acquitting the respondents of offences punishable under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that respondent No. 1 Ravindra married to deceased Smt. Meerabai about 13 years before the date of incident. Respondent No. 2 Ramdas is the brother of respondent No. 1 Ravindra and respondent No. 3 Shobhahai is the wife of Ramdas, respondent No. 2. Thus, they are the relatives of the husband of deceased Meerabai. The respondents used to harass Smt. Meerabai with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for money. Due to the harassment meted by the accused persons to deceased Meerabai on 27-12-1989, she along with her son Sandeep and daughter Vaishali Jumped into the well, situated in the field of respondents. ...
Dr. Smt. Beena Yadu Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3402
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. This order in the criminal revision No. 426/2002 arising out the order dated 8-3-2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, in Criminal Case No. 3474/1997 shall also dispose of connected Criminal Revision No. 348/2002 filed against the order dated 15-3-2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Damoh, in criminal case No. 3474/1997.2. It is said that on 9-3-1997 a child delivered at 06.30 by one Smt. Manisha Jain under care and supervision of staff nurse died in a Government Hospital allegedly due to negligence of the applicant. It is also said that being a Government. Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Damoh, the applicant had treated Smt. Manisha Jain wife of Ravindra Kumar Jain, the complainant herein, privately and had also received a fee of Rs. 80/-. It is also a case of the prosecution that the applicant had demanded Rs. 2,000/- and since the money had not been paid, the applicant had refused to attend to the patient in the ho...
State of M.P. Vs. S.B.S. Parihar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT364; 2003(3)MPLJ572
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we propose to dismiss this petition by this order in circumstances narrated below.2. S.B.S. Parihar was Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajghat Canal, Sub-Division No. 6, Orchha (Tikamgarh). V.K. Agrawal, Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Division No. 2, Orchha (Tikamgarh) was placed under suspension by order dated 19-5-2000. Pursuant to the directions of the State Government, Shri S.B.S. Parihar was given Additional Charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal, Sub Division No. II, Orchha (Tikamgarh), heretobefore occupied by Shri V.K. Agrawal. During this period, he released payment of Rs. 52 lacs to contractors by passing their bills. The charge against S.B.S. Parihar is that he should not have exercised financial powers, since he was holding only current charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Project and that he did not stay at the Head quarters. It seems, seriousness was attached to t...
Parenteral Drugs (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(157)ELT5(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 25-9-2002 (Annexure P-9) as also the order dated 29-11-2002 (Annexure P-13) passed by Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Indore. In order to appreciate the issue involved and urged, few facts need mention in brief.2. Petitioner - a limited company is engaged in the business of manufacture of various types of 'Miscellaneous Fluids' and Patent Proprietary Medicines.3. Dispute arose between the petitioner and the Central Excise Department in relation to excisability of certain products manufactured by the petitioner. This led to issuance of show cause notice, dated 7-6-2002 by the respondent No. 2 Commissioner Central Excise to petitioner. The petitioner was asked to reply.4. It appears that the case was fixed for proceedings before the Commissioner on 20-9-2002. The petitioner sought adjournment on 20-9-2002, inter alia on the groun...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Satish Patidar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003ACJ2081; AIR2003MP205; 2003(4)MPLJ306
S.L. Jain, J. 1. Union of India has filed the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1987'), aggrieved by the award dated 12-6-97 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal') in Original Application No. 628/96. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lac as compensation to the respondents who are the legal representatives of deceased Sadashiv, who died due to a fall from running train.2. The final journey for the deceased began on July 14, 1992, when he boarded 130 up train at Thandala for Meghnagar. He fell from the train and the train ran over him. The respondents, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim for compensation before the Tribunal after about 4 years of the incident, on 5-8-96.3. The appellant contested the claim of the respondents on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. It was also contended by the Union of India that Sectio...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1964; 2003(1)MPLJ578
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. THIS order also governs disposal of MCrC No. 3661/02; State of M.P. v. Deepak S/o Mahesh Sharma.2. In an application for grant of bail filed by co-accused Mukhtyar vide MCrC No. 3375/02 it was argued on behalf of the accused that main accused non-applicant Deepak, causing fire arm injury to the deceased, has been released on bail by I Additional Sessions Judge, Badwah by order dated 24-9-2002. Certified copy of this order was also filed, whereas bail application of co-accused Mukhtyar was rejected prior to 25-9-1992. Though against him there was no allegation for causing injury to the deceased or even taking direct or indirect part in the incident of murder. He was a gunman duly appointed by the owner of Petrol Pump for security purpose, where deceased Dilip and non applicant Deepak were sitting. Accused Deepak in absence of co-accused Mukhtyar used the gun for commission of murder of Dilip. Against Mukhtyar charge was only under Section 30 of the Arms Act. While...
Mohd. Anis and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ1935; AIR2003MP276
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdol, Claim Case No. 27/92, dated 29-3-1996.2. Briefly, claimants are legal heirs, of driver Mohd. Safi (deceased). They are claiming compensation for the death of Mohd. Safi, driver of truck No. MP-16A/0225, owned by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, insured with Oriental Insurance Company, Limited, which met with accident on September 4/5, 1992 at 12 p.m. The deceased was run over by the truck and he died. According to claimants, deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, in addition to Rs. 60/- daily allowance. The claimants were depending on him for subsistence and with the death of the deceased they have lost a bread earner of the family.3. The respondents submit that the deceased was rash and negligent in driving the truck. Insurance Company states that he did not possess valid driving licence and he could approach to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Claims Tribunal has no ju...
Beni Prasad Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1733; 2003(4)MPLJ484
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 18-6-1984, Food Inspector T.P. Tiwari (PW 1) took the sample of 'Jagni' oil from the applicant. The same was sent to the Public Analyst, in the report, the sample of the oil and was found to be sub-standard, as a result of which the applicant was prosecuted and the charge sheet was filed.3. The learned trial Judge framed charges for the offences punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The applicant abjured the guilt.4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses, namely, T.P. Tiwari Food Inspector (PW 1), Ramesh Kumar (PW 2) and Sajjan Singh (PW 3). The witnesses Ramesh Kumar and Sajjan Singh are the witnesses of the 'Panchanama' (Ex.P-4). The...
Ramjan Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ1431
Deepak Verma and S.L. Kochar, JJ.1. Mr. Manish Jain, counsel for the appellant.Mr. A.K. Sethi with Mr. Badjatiya for respondent No. 1. I.A. No. 83 of 2003 has been filed by appellant for dispensing with service of notice on the respondent No. 2 driver, on the ground that he was ex parte before the Tribunal. Application perused and considered. The same is allowed.2. With consent arguments heard on merits. For the injuries sustained by the present appellant in a motor accident, a sum of Rs. 40,000 has been awarded to him. Feeling aggrieved he has preferred this appeal.3. According to the appellant and his treating Dr. Pradeep Bhargava, his right hand has been rendered practically useless as it cannot be moved on account of the injuries sustained by him. The permanent disability has been shown as 60 per cent. Dr. Pradeep Bhargava has admitted that the appellant shall not be in a position to perform any work with his right hand. Prior to the accident he was working as a mason. On account o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »