Madhya Pradesh Court June 2003 Judgments
Ramesh Khati Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT70
S.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision has been filed by the applicant against the judgment dated 6-5-2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dewas in Cr. Appeal No. 175/2000 arising out of the judgment and order dated 28-9-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dewas in Cr. Case No. 100/99 thereby convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for brevity 'the Act') and sentencing to R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional S.I. for one month.2. The prosecution case in nut-shell was that on 24-2-89, in Village Rajoda at 7.30 AM Food Inspector, R.S. Kelkar (P.W. 1) took sample from the applicant and after completion of sampling formalities sent the same for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receipt of analysis report (Ex. P-10), he filed the prosecution against the applicant.3. The applicant abjured his guilt and therefore, he w...
Tag this Judgment!Chandmal and anr. Vs. Ratan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT106
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. He has come up in Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment/decree dated 10-1-2003 passed by First Additional District Judge, Alirajpur, District Jhabua, in C. A. No. 7-A/ 2002 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 20-9-2002 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Alirajpur, in C.S. No. 94-A/2001. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid.2. Heard Shri B.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in this appeal. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as such and hence the appeal must merit dismissal in liminep. 4. The dispute is between the two neighbours having their houses adjacent to each other. Plaintiff is a teacher and is having his family consi...
Tag this Judgment!Madhya Pradesh Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari Sangh and anr. Vs. State ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT199
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the Notification No. F.15-17-97-XVI-A, dated 20-14999 (Annexure P-4) published in the M.P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary, dated 21st January, 1999) on the ground that it is void, illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory and without jurisdiction.2. By the said notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of power conferred on it by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for brevity 'the Act'), the amendment in the Notification dated 31-12-1960 pertaining to entry No. 16 has been amended as under :--'16. Engineering including Motor Vehicle but excluding engineering industry being carried on by any Department of the State Government.'The grievance of the petitioners pertains to the later part of the said amended notification which has been inserted viz., 'excluding en...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Sharma Vs. the Vice Chancellor, Rdvv and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT185
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition is assailing the communication P-4 of Rani Durgawati University, dated 7-12-2002 by which petitioner has been required to surrender the mark-sheet of LL.B. final year as the University has found after enquiry that mark-sheet issued is false/forged/incorrect. In case petitioner fails to surrender it, FIR has to be registered with police station.2. Petitioner is an Advocate. It is averred that he passed LL.B. final year examination in the year 2000 from Rani Durgawati University, Jabalpur. Petitioner had appeared in the final 'examination in the academic session 1999-2000. He could not succeed in the main examination due to award of inadequate marks. Petitioner applied for revaluation of the answer-sheets. After revaluation petitioner was declared as having passed in the final year LL.B. examination. Mark-sheet (P-11) was issued by the University of LL.B. final year. Petitioner applied for being enrolled as an Advocate with the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Maiku Baiga Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT537; 2004(2)MPLJ65
S.L. Jain,. J.1. Appellant Maiku Baiga stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated December 10, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Session Trial No. 50/90.2. Appellant/accused is the husband of deceased Smt. Maiki Bai. On 21-1-90 at about 6 P.M. while the deceased was in the house of the accused, she sustained extensive burn injuries on her person. As per the prosecution case there was matrimonial disharmony between the appellant and the deceased and occasionally, the appellant used to torture the deceased. It is alleged by the prosecution that at the relevant time the appellant wanted to have sexual intercourse with the deceased hut she refused to oblige him. This resulted in wordy quarrel between them. In an enraged state of mind the appellant after pouring kerosene on the deceased set her ablaze and lied away.3. Attracted by the alarm raised by the deceased, Baijnath (P.W. 1), Ram Cha...
Tag this Judgment!Lallu Singh Vs. Praveen Vishwakarma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT319; 2004(1)MPLJ45
ORDER1. This is complainant's revision petition against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 8-4-94, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 653/92, whereby respondents accused Praveen Vishwakarma, Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma and Dilip Vishwakarma and their co-accused persons Sudhir Vishwakarma, Piddi @ Pradeep Vishwakarma and Vinod Sen were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 34, IPC.2. Police Civil Lines, Jabalpur after completing the investigation of the case registered at Crime No. 361/91, charge-sheeted as many as six accused persons, including the three respondents, for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 34, IPC.3. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the Trial Court under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 34, IPC.4. At the trial, the above charges against the accused persons were sought...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Tubes of India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: [2004]136STC386(MP)
A.K. Gohil, J. 1. Heard.2. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an assessee, has challenged annexure P/9 which is an order granting instalments passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax dated July 18, 2002. It is admitted by Shri Choudhary that the Commissioner has passed this order annexure P/9 dated July 18, 2002 on the basis of his application for grant of instalments which was filed on July 18, 2002 as annexure P/8. Thereafter, on the basis of annexure P/9, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax issued a demand notice by annexure P/12, which as per Shri Choudhary is a garnishee order.3. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that after passing the order of annexure P/9, his case was registered before the BIFR and therefore after registration of the case before the BIFR his submission is that the money cannot be recovered and notice annexure P/12 cannot be issued and, thus, prayed for its quashment. During the cours...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Kumar JaIn Vs. Satish Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ1094
Deepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ.1. Both appeals arise out of the award passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barwani, in M.V. Case Nos. 179 and 180 of 1999 decided on 27.7.2002. Since they arise out of the common impugned award, the appeals were heard analogously and have been disposed of by this common order. However, the facts of both the appeals are taken up separately, which are as under:The appellant Padam Kumar Jain was aged about 40 years on the date of accident and was working as teacher in Government School, Barwani, drawing salary of Rs. 10,533 per month. In a motor accident he had sustained serious bodily injuries. There were fractures of tibia, fibula and hip bones. His face was disfigured. Apart from above, he had other related problems also. Dr. B.L. Khanger, PW 9, who had examined him, has assessed his permanent disability in right leg to the extent of 45 per cent. Exh. P-309 has been filed to show the extent of his disability. For the aforesaid in...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Semval and ors. Vs. Laxman Singh Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT265; 2003(4)MPLJ49
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J. 1. This contempt appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the impugned order dated 22-3-2002 in the Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2002 was heard on 27-3-2003 and the order was reserved. However, for the reasons given in the order dated 19-6-2003, parties were granted a further opportunity to file additional affidavits which they have done. To get a picture of the background of the case and for the sake of convenience, the said order dated 19-6-2003 is reproduced as under :-- 'Shri Vivek Tankha, learned Advocate General with Shri N.K. Mody, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Prashant Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants. Shri B.S. Dhakad, learned Counsel for the respondent. This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act impugns an order dated 22-3-2002 in the Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2002, passed by learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Shri S.S. Jha, J.) recording conviction and sentence of the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Jalam Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT366; 2003(4)MPLJ20
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. The appellants, eight in number, have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 9th March, 1990 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 38/89 convicting them under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code with sentences of rigorous imprisonment for one year and imprisonment for life each respectively.2. The prosecution story in brief, may be stated :--On 6-11-1988 at about 11 AM. Jagdish (deceased) while working on his field was assaulted by the appellants by lathi and kharda (sharp edged weapon like farsa). As a result of the injuries sustained, Jagdish died the same day. Shantibai (P.W. 4) who was on the field, came running to the house of the deceased and narrated the incident to Gijiabai (P.W. 1) wife of deceased, Laxman (P.W. 2) and Chunnulal (P.W. 3). Gijiabai, Laxman and Chunnulal rushed to the spot and saw appellants assaultin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »