Madhya Pradesh Court June 2004 Judgments
Mushiram Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT326
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner, a Constable, was an accused in Criminal CaseNo. 1563/92 for an offence punishable under Section 377 of tfre Indian PenalCode. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa held that the charges have notbeen proved from any quarter by the prosecution and accordingly by judgmentdated 13-2-97 recorded acquittal in his favour. After the petitioner was acquitted a charge-sheet dated 25-2-97 was served on him on three charges, namely,that he had committed unnatural offence with a child by which he had madehimself liable for misconduct under sub-regulation No. 2 of Regulation 64 ofthe M.P. Police Regulations; that he refused to receive the order of suspensionwhich was passed against him which tantamount to violation 64 of Regulation;and that he had remained absent from 4-llr92 to. 25-4-9,3, i.e., almost for aperiod of 172 days without permission.2. The petitioner filed a show cause denying the charges andpositively pleaded that he had been acquitted in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT65; 2005(1)MPLJ568
Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.1. Appellant herein, stands convicted under Section 376(1) and Section 506 (II) of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 25/2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution's case is that on the date of incident at about 2.00 p.m. prosecutrix (P.W. 7) went to the house of her neighbourer Santoshbai to borrow some sugar from her. When she was returning, appellant, who was already hiding there, caught hold of her and committed sexual intercourse with her. After the act of intercourse, appellant asked her not to disclose to anyone about the incident, else he will kill her. Due to the fear of the appellant, she did not tell her mother or anyone about the incident. Few days after the incident, there was a whisper in the village about the incident which brought ill fame to the prosecutrix (P.W. 7). On being getting defamed, she told her mother Savitribai (P.W. 9) and Jagdish (P.W. 3) about the incident. Thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT438
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant Mangal has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellant Chironjilal has been convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already spent by him in jail.2. The prosecution case is that on 25-5-1982 at 10.30 P.M. deceased Gomti Prasad was going with his brother Chandra Singh (P.W. 1) to a nearby betel shop in Ghamapur. When they reached near the crossing the deceased was surrounded by appellants Mangal and Chironjilal and 5 other persons. Appellant Mangal is said to have caused injuries on the head of the deceased with a Farsa by inflicting two blows. Appellant Chironjilal is said to have caused injuries to Chandra Singh (P.W. 1) with a Lathi. The incident is said to have been witnessed by Halkai (P.W. 3) also who is father of the deceased. The FIR was lodged by Chandra Singh (P.W. 1) at Ghamapur Police Station at 11 P.M. on the same day and that is Ex. P-1. Th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of M.P. Vs. Ramkripal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT443; 2004(3)MPLJ528
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for confirmation of the sentence of death imposed upon accused Ramkripal for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. He has also filed an appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.2. Deceased Nanhai was sister-in-law (Sarahaj), that is wife of brother of the wife of the accused.3. The prosecution case is that on 26-5-2003 at about 8 A.M. in Village Bhursi accused Ramkripal beheaded the deceased by attacking on her neck with an axe resulting in her instantaneous death. The report of this incident was lodged by Johan Singh (P.W. 5) who is elder brother of the husband of the deceased at 12.30 P.M. on the same date at Jaisinghnagar Police Station and that is Ex. P-2. In this report the name of Anelabai has been mentioned as eye-witness. Raghavendra Dwivedi (P.W. 12) is the Police Officer who recorded the FIR and proceeded to the place of incident. He prepared the panchnama of the dead...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshchandra Malviya Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1052]; 2004(4)MPHT231
ORDERS.K. Seth, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order/communication dated 31-5-2001 issued by the respondents bidding aideu to the petitioner by accepting the golden hand shake under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the respondents on 28-10-2000.2. Petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Manager with the respondents. On 23-12-2000, he applied for voluntary retirement under the Scheme. Petitioner, however, changed his mind and sought withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement on 31-1-2001. By the order dated 16-4-2001, petitioner was granted voluntary retirement as it was accepted by the Competent Authority. It was further mentioned in the order that the petitioner shall stand relieved from the Bank's services at the close of office-hours on 31-5-2001. Consequently, by the impugned communication, petitioner stood relieved w.e.f. 31-5-2001.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner placing heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Bank of In...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT295
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Department of Education on 21-5-77. It is not disputed that he has passed Higher Secondary. He was promoted to the post of Lab Assistant vide Annexure A-2. Thereafter, the post of Lab Assistant has been converted and re-designated as Lab Technician with different pay scale. As pleaded, a circular was issued vide Annexure A-5, dated 21-7-87 stipulating the qualification for Lab Technician. On the basis of such circular, on 24-8-87 vide Annexure A-4 the petitioner was reverted to the post of peon. A clarificatory circular dated 19-10-87 (Annexure A-6) was issued indicating that earlier circular dated 21-7-87 is prospective in nature. On coming into force of clarificatory circular an order dated 15-2-88 came into force by which the order of reversion of the petitioner was recalled and the petitioner was put in the post of Lab Attendant and he was allowed to get the old pay scale since 1-1-85 in the pay scale of Rs. 515-840...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Narayan Bajpai Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT312; 2004(3)MPLJ428
Dipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner, a Graduate and holder of a certificate in Draughtsman Trade from Industrial Training Institute, Rewa, appeared in the examination for appointment on the post of Draughtsman and was declared to have qualified. Ex-consequence, he was appointed as an Assistant Draughtsman in the Department of Water Resources (formerly known as the 'Irrigation Department') on 1-8-1980 as a daily wager. He continued as a Daily Wager till the first year of the last decade of the last millennium without any break in service. A certificate issued to that effect by the Executive Engineer has been brought on record as Annexure A-1.2. According to the writ petitioner, on the basis of various circularsthat came into force as policy decisions by the State Government, his case wasconsidered for the purpose of regularisation and eventually on 16th April, 1990vide Annexure A-2, his services stood regularised. It is asserted that throughout the service career, the petitioner had an unb...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Priyanka Agarwal and anr. Vs. Abhay Agarwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT319; 2004(3)MPLJ393
1.This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against order dated 21-10-2003 of the Family Court, Bhopal by which the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside ex-parte order dated 29-4-2003 in M.J.C. No. 53-A of 2002 have been rejected.2. Arguments of both the sides heard. The dispute was between the maternal grand-mother and the father of two minor children aged 4 years and 1 year regarding their custody. It appears from the proceedings that the grand-mother could not appear on certain dates and therefore, she was proceeded ex -parte. It is well settled that in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the paramount consideration is the welfare of minor children. There are allegations and counter allegations in the application for appointment of guardianship and its reply. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that evidence of both the sides is recorded and then a suitable order is p...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Electricals Industries Ltd. Vs. Purshottam and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR767]; (2005)IILLJ896MP; 2004(4)MPLJ206
Rajendra Menon, J.1. As common questions are involved in all these three petitions and challenge made is to a common award dated August 10, 2003 passed by the Labour Court, all the three petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Respondent employees in all these three cases were working in the Establishment of the petitioners which has its manufacturing unit in Industrial Area Banmore.2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent- employees committed serious act of misconduct on May 26, 1991 inasmuch as they assaulted one Kalyan Singh an employee of the petitioner's establishment who was on duty at the relevant time. Because of this an FIR was lodged. Respondent-employees were prosecuted for having committed offences under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was also issued to them and after conducting departmental enquiry, their services were terminated.3. On a dispute being raised, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Co...
Tag this Judgment!Vee Enn Enterprises and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT366; 2004(4)MPLJ63
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioners aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, by which an outstanding recovery against the respondent No. 8 has been directed to be recovered from the petitioners by order (Annexure P-1).2. Short facts of the case are that the Industrial premises bearing No. 66-D Sector 'C', Industrial Area, Mandideep, Raisen belongs to respondent No. 2 M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (P) Ltd. This premises was initially allotted to respondent No. 7 M/s. Poly Products. Respondent No. 7 M/s. Poly Products took loan from respondent No. 6 M.P. Financial Corporation. Action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) was taken against respondent No. 7 and the property of respondent No. 7 after action under Section 29 of the Act was sold to Smt. Purnima Jain of M/s. Arihant Industries, Mandideep/respondent No. 8. The aforesaid premises was subsequently transferred to respondent Smt. Purnima Jain on 20th S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »