Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Being aggrieved by order dated 9 th August, 2010 passed in Sessions Case No.152/2010 by the Third additional Sessions Judge Vidisha (M.P.), thereby the trial Judge framed the charges against petitioner for commission of offence under Section 467, 468, 471 and Section 199 of I.P.C., the present petition has been preferred. (2) The facts , in nutshell as unfolded in the record of trial Court, are that on 28 th January 2010, the petitioner appeared before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Vidisha (M.P.) as surety in favour of accused person Raj Bahadur Singh Chauhan @ Golu in connection with Crime No.69/10 registered against the accused for committing an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. While acting as surety for the the accused, the petitioner at the time of giving bail, filed his affidavit, bail declaration form and title document of the Land Record Right Book "Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustaka" before the court. On enquiry by the court concerned, it is transpired that the surety...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(2)MPHT84
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1, M.P. Human Rights Commission, to supply the copy of entire inquiry report to him.2. On a perusal of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was admitted to the 'Orthopadic Home' running by a Private Doctor Prakash Lodhikar who assured him that he would be completely alright within a period of three years. Operation of both the legs was done on 19-11-98 by the said doctor and thereafter the petitioner was suggested to do some exercise. He discharged from the said Orthopadic Home on 15-3-89. According to the petitioner the Doctor also advised him to do massage of his legs and not to bend his legs which he seriously followed. It is averred that the petitioner availed the treatment from time to time. On 2-2-95 the then Collector Shri Raut referred the petitioner to an another spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989MP172
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The appellant-landlord has come up in this Second Appeal against an order dt. 21-1-88 passed by the District Judge, Dhar in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/78, under Section 18(3) of the M, P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are thus: The appellant filed a suit in the year 1975 for ejectment in respect of the suit premises situated at house No. 271, Pipli Bazar, Dhar on the ground of Section 12(1)(h) and on-other grounds. The suit was decreed under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act as the accommodation was required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding or making substantial additions or alterations and in the opinion of the decreeing Court, such rebuilding or additions or alterations could not be carried out without the accommodation being vacant. Against this, the tenant-respondent filed an appeal, which was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred, wherein the decree of the Courts below was confirmed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP346
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against two separate orders dated 29th August 1964 whereby the Central Government, acting under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, determined that Nasiruddin (petitioner 1) and his wife Smt. Hasinabi (petitioner 2) had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after 26th January 1950 and before 10th January 1956. The petitioners have prayed that these orders be called up and quashed by certiorari and the respondents be directed to forbear from taking against the petitioners any action grounded upon those orders. 2. The material facts in so far as they are not disputed are these. When the Constitution came into force, the petitioners were Indian citizens living in India with their children. In the year 1954, the petitioner 2 and her children went to Pakistan. In February of the following year, the petitioner 1 too went to Pakistan. The two petitioners a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994ACJ987
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision Nos. 249, 257, 258, 259 and 260 of 1992.(i) C.R. No. 248 of 1992 arises out of order dated 16.3.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 19 of 1991;(ii) C.R. No. 249 of 1992 arises out of order dated 16.3.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 22 of 1991;(iii) C.R. No. 257 of 1992 arises out of order dated 12.3.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 21 of 1991;(iv) C.R. No. 258 of 1992 arises out of order dated 16.3.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 1 of 1992;(v) C.R. No. 259 of 1992 arises out of order dated 16.3.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 24 of 1991; and(vi) C.R. No. 260 of 1992 arises out of order dated 19.3.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 20 of 1991.All these revisions arise out of the orders referred above passed by XVIth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore.2. The brief history of the case is that non-applicant Umraosingh owns a tractor attached with trolley M.P. 09.D.693. It is insured with petitioner who is arrayed as respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(2000)ACC238; 2002ACJ1224; 2000(1)MPLJ415
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer appellant.2. Perused the record.3. Feeling aggrieved by the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, whereunder the insurer also stands saddled with the liability in regard to the payment of the amount determined to be payable as compensation to the claimants apart from the driver and the owner of the offending motor vehicle, it has come up in appeal seeking modification of the award providing that the insurer will not be liable to pay the amount in question.4. The facts in brief shorn of details in respect whereof there is no dispute lie in a narrow compass: The offending motor vehicle, an Ambassador car bearing registration No. CPK 7638, initially belonged to and was owned by Ram Kripal, the present respondent No. 6. Suresh Kumar, the present respondent No. 4, had purchased the same from Ram Kripal on 26.5.1990. On the date of accident, i.e., 26.6.1990, the aforesaid motor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1846
ORDERA.S. Tripathi, J.1. The two applicants were facing trial for the charges under Sections 376, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, on a case registered by Police Station Malanpur, district Bhind.2. During the course of the trial, when prosecutrix Smt. Gayitri Devi (PW. 1) was being examined in the Court, the trial Court on 8-1 -1994 stopped further cross-examination of the prosecutrix and passed the impugned order directing therein that an additional charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Act') be also framed. The trial Court jumped over the matter and framed additional charge on 8-1-1994 under the Special Act and directed to proceed with the trial from that stage.3. The applicants are aggrieved by this order on the ground that the trial Court had no material at the stage when additional charge was framed that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe and the charge frame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(2008)BC546
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. M/s. A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by Shri Sanjay Garg Director, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, challenging communications made vide Annexure P/l dated 25.1.2007 by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 cancelling a contract granted for collection of user fee in National Highway No. 3, imposing of penalty of Rs. 2,41,097/- and forfeiting the performance security to the tune of Rs. 2,20,00,125/-, and letter Annexure P/2 dated 27.1.2005 issued by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to respondent No. 6. Bank seeking revocation of a Bank guarantee for Rs. 2,20,00,125. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that National Highways Authority of India is incorporated under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 (hereinabove referred to as 'Act 1988'). It is a Statutory Authority discharging functions as contemplated under the Act, 1988. The Act of 1988 and the National Highway...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 Cr.R. No.607 of 2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL REVISION NO.607 OF 201.APPLICANT: Sunder Singh S/o Pratap Singh Jat, Age 28 years, Occupation Parcel Clerk, Parcel Office Bilaspur, R/o DR4-A, Budhwari Railway Colony, Mahila Gatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh through G.R.P. Bina, District Sagar (M.P.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mukesh Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Order reserved on :05. 07.2013 Order delivered on :03. 09.2013 This revision petition have been preferred by applicant under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, here-in-after in short the Code. against the impugned order dated 20.03.2013 p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1982)31CTR(MP)301; [1983]141ITR290(MP)
Sohani, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued under Section 263(1) of the I.T, Act, 1961, met all the requirements of law and was a valid notice and, therefore, the CIT exercised his jurisdiction validly (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that proper opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the assessee (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 was void ab initio (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to direct the CIT to pass a fre...
Tag this Judgment!