Madhya Pradesh Court September 2003 Judgments
Baboo Khan Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT165
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The petitioner has suffered an externment order under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, (in short, hereinafter called 'the Act') in Case No. 1 of 2000, dated 14-11-2002, passed by District Magistrate, Indore. Having suffered this order, petitioner went up in appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the State Government. By order dated 3-6-2003 (Annexure P-2) the State Government, i.e., Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the externment order. It is against this appellate order, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Heard Smt. V. Phaye, learned Counsel for the petitioner on thequestion of admission.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in this writ, which is worth admission.4. In my opinion, the District Magistrate was perfectly justified in coming to its conclusion that the case for externment o...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Ingots Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC464(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. By filing this writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of a revisionary order, dated December 16, 2002 (annexure P 9), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax (respondent No. 2) which in turn affirms the assessment order, dated October 23, 1996 (annexure P 6), passed by the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No. 3).2. Petitioner is a manufacturer of certain items made out of steel, one such item claims to be manufactured by the petitioner is known as 'Crowbar'. This item is exempt from payment of sales tax.3. For the period April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, the petitioner claimed to have sold the said item, i.e., crowbar, valuing Rs. 71,01,344. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of sales tax so far as this item was concerned in the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer as is clear from the order of assessment doubted the genuineness of the invoices and hence, made inquiries through Inspect...
Tag this Judgment!Lance Naik Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT426
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22-1-2001 (Annexure P-4) by which the petitioner has been discharged from Army Service.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was enrolled in Army Service on 2-1-1989. He was working as a Soldier in 14, JAK Rifles. He sustained 'closed head injury' on 14-5-1993 while playing boxing as a part of organised game in the unit. This injury was held to be attributable to the Military Service by the Court of Inquiry. The petitioner was examined several times and he was treated for the said injury. Ultimately he was put in medical category BEE (Permanent) for two years from 3-6-1999 to 2-6-2001. He was given 'sheltered appointment' from 10-6-1995 to 29-12-2000. Thereafter he has been discharged from service by the impugned order dated 22-1-2001 due to 'non-availability of sheltered appointment'. He has been released on 1-8-2001.3. The petitioner's case is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Dubey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT394
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 12-44989 (Annexure P-2) by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Lance Naik in the Army. His number was 7771580 X L/NK (MP). He was appointed on 7-7-1979. He was married to Smt. Subhadrabai in the year 1973. On 25-5-1987 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. A copy of that show-cause notice is Annexure R-4. In this notice it was alleged that the petitioner has remarried Prabhabai. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 5-12-1988 (Annexure R-6). In this reply the petitioner has admitted that he has remarried on 21-7-1986. The petitioner was also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494, IPC on a complaint filed by his first wife. The petitioner has been acquitted of the charge under Section 494, IPC by judgment dated 26-5-2001 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, ...
Tag this Judgment!Akash Sindhwani and anr. Vs. Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT515; 2004(1)MPLJ9
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioners have prayed for further opportunity for appearing in the examination of Diploma in Pharmacy Course.2. In W.P. No. 6848/2002, petitioner Ku. Archana Mishra was admitted in Diploma in Pharmacy Course in the year 1998-99. She could not pass any paper in the examination held in May-June, 1999. She appeared in Second Year Examination held in December, 1999 and cleared 4 papers out of 6. Petitioner appeared in remaining two papers in May-June, 2000. The petitioner cleared one more paper and the one paper remained to be cleared. Petitioner was given admission in the Second Year in July, 2000. Petitioner appeared in the examination in December, 2000 for remaining one paper of First year but could not clear. She appeared in the examination held in May-June, 2001, in all the 6 appears of Second year and one paper of First year. She cleared 3 papers of the Second year, however, she could not clear the one paper of the First year. Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu Alias Chandrabhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1080
Uma Nath Singh, J.1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 17-7-1997 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, in Sessions Trial No. 391/1996 holding the accused/appellant guilty of offence under Section 307 and sentencing him to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. Briefly narrated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 28-8-1996, accused/appellant caused Kulhadi (axe) injury to complainant Ramesh while he was grazing his cattle. It is said that accused/appellant reached there and asked complainant Ramesh (P.W. 1) as why his cattle had grazed in his field yesterday. When the complainant tried to explain the position, he was assaulted by accused/appellant repeatedly for six times on vital parts of the body. According to the complainant the first blow landed on head, the second blow on the back of the head and the third and the fourth blows on both legs. When the complainant fell down...
Tag this Judgment!Brajendra Kumar Soni and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT201
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This order will decide a batch of petitions, list of which is enclosed alongwith this order.2. The common point involved in the cases is the allocation of the employees from State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh or vice-versa. After provisional allocation petitioners made representations to the Committee constituted under Section 71 of M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. The grievance in all the cases is common that the representations filed by the petitioner/petitioners were not properly considered by the Committee and grievances remained unredressed, because of non-consideration or non-speaking order on representation. Section 71 of the Act reads as under:--'71. Advisory Committees.--The Central Government may, by order establish one or more Advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to-- (a) the discharge of any of its functions under this Part; and(b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Chouksey and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT131
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. As in both the writ petitions challenge is to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall advert to the facts in W.P. No. 597/2001.2. The petitioners, three in number, have putforth that the Act contains provisions making certain instruments chargeable to duty, the manner as to payment of duty, adjudication as to proper stamps, treatment of instruments not duly stamped controlled by different revenue authorities and the schedules including Schedule I-A appended to the Act describing the origin of stamp duty and rates on different instruments. A reference has been made to Section 2(10) of the Act which defines 'conveyance' to include conveyance on sale and any instrument by which property whether movable or immovable is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise spe...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Patel Vs. Smt. Pusia Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT226
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23-7-98 in Criminal Revision No. 64/96 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla whereby the Revisional Court has reversed the order dated 26-9-1996 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 159/95 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for setting aside the said order.2. The facts as have been exposited are that the non-applicant wife instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming a particular sum towards maintenance but she was unsuccessful before the Court of first instance. Being dissatisfied the wife carried a revision and the Revisional Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- from the date of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, i.e., 26-8-96. The said order is the subject-matter of present revision.3. When the matter was liste...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Lahria Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT205
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the provisions contained in Section 59-A (i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (in short 'the Act') brought into existence by M.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act No. 22/2000) to the extent it prohibits any Court for entertaining the application for grant of anticipatory bail is unconstitutional.2. The facts as setforth in the petition are that the petitioner who is a graduate belongs to the family of lawyer and he has no criminal record. He has been implicated falsely in Cr. Case No. 405/2000 registered at the Police Station, Gohalpur, Jabalpur. According to the petitioner he is engaged in the business of travel agency and he is the owner of the Geeta Travellers situated at Katni. The authorities of the Police Station, Gohalpur seized a Maruti Van No. MP-20 T OJ 64 i-n an abandoned condition and from the said van the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »