Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1957CriLJ184
Shinde, C.J.1. This revision has been referred to a Division Bench under Section 29, Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act by a Single Bench. The facts out of which this revision arises are briefly as follows:2. On 5-2-1955 an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(b), Prevention of Corruption Act was registered. On 7-2-1955, the Deputy Superintendent of Police gave a direction to Inspector Saksena and Mr. Saksena applied to Additional District Magistrate, Indore for permission to investigate the case and arrest the accused. The permission was granted by Mr. Acharya and the investigation was conducted by Inspector Saksena.On 15-6-1955 sanction was obtained under Section 6 (c) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act and on 24-6-1955 a charge-sheet was submitted. On 2-8-1955 the accused sought an adjournment which was granted. On 18-8-1955 an application was moved on behalf of the accused to the effect that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997MP43
S.S. Jha, J.1. This petition has been filed in public interest by the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking a relief that the orders Annexures P/2 and P/3-A circulated as office memorandum, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, National Language Department on 1st July, '91 be implemented and students in Lakshmi Bai National College of Physical Education, Gwalior (LNCPE) be imparted education in Hindi as well apart from English. It is also prayed that the students be permitted to write their examination papers in Hindi language. On 9-4-96, after hearing the arguments of the petitioner at some length it was found necessary to hear Members of the High Court Bar Association, Gwalior as the petition involves a very important question. Shri J. P. Gupta and ShriR. D. Jain, Senior Advocates appeared asamicus curiae on the request to assist theCourt. 2. The petitioner has submitted that since Hindi has been declared as national language and LNCPE is under the control of Union of India, the st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT186
R.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the landlord against the reversing judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2003, decided on 18-2-2005 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Ninth Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 5-A/97, decided on 22-4-2002 has been reversed and the suit filed by the landlord/plaintiff for eviction has been dismissed.2. This Court had admitted this second appeal on the following substantial question of law:(1) Whether non-examination of the plaintiff was fatal to the eviction suit, when her son Dr. Sanjeev Sarkar and his wife Dr. Rupa Sarkar were examined to prove their bona fide need3. At the time of hearing it is observed that the following additional substantial questions of law also arise for adjudication in this appeal namely:2. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed gross error of law by ignoring the extensive and cogent evidence on record in respect of bona fide need of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1485
Faizanuddin, JJ.1. This is a reference of the single Bench of this High Court which raises an important and indeed an interesting question relating to the powers of the High Court and the Court of Session to issue directions for grant of anticipatory bail to persons who have been released on bail during committal proceedings and have not yet been committed in custody to the Court of Session for trial, but who apprehend that they may at the time of committing the case to the Court of Session be remanded to custody by the committing Magistrate.2. In this reference we are not much concerned about the facts as they exist before the trial Court, but it would be appropriate to refer and state the essential part of the relevant facts in brief so as to appreciate the points at issue, properly and effectively.3. The factual aspect of this case which emerges out, giving rise to this reference is that one Keshev Ram Dubey lodged a report in the Police Station, Pawai against the four accused/appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1986]63STC376(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J.1. The petitioner who is registered sales tax dealer and deals in inter-State sales, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of Section 39 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act with a prayer to quash the order dated 28th January, 1982, passed by respondent No. 3 (annexure-P3), the revisional order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 31st May, 1982 (annexure-P5), and the subsequent communication dated 28th April, 1983, issued by respondent No. 1 (exhibit-P7) under Section 39(1-A) and the subsequent communication dated 25th August, 1983, issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 39(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (annexure-P9), being illegal on the ground that, apart from not giving a chance of hearing by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, they have failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law, despite there being material available on record, which has resulted in failure of justice as the petitioner has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)MPHT31
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. The defendant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2001 in Civil Appeal No. 84-A/2000 by 10th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by which the suit of plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was decreed, by reversing the judgment and decree dated 12-5-2000 in Civil Suit No. 3-A/98 by 4th Civil Judge, Class I, Jabalpur, dismissing the suit of respondent.2. This appeal was admitted on 21-3-2002 on the following substantial question of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the respondent is able to prove his bonafide need for non-residential purpose and that he has no other suitable accommodation for the purpose within the town of Jabalpur is perverse and arbitrary as the respondent has been changing his versions from time to time and further that he was having...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1987CriLJ46
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the judgment dt. 4-3-1983, passed by the lst. Addl Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1982, thereby upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence as recorded against them by the Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Bannawar, vide judgment dt. 22-7-82, in Criminal Case No. 221 of 1981.2. The petitioners were prosecuted for the alleged offences punishable Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for Short, the Act). On 16-12-1980 the Food Inspector Babulal (P. W. 1), by about 1.20 in the afternoon, inspected the premises of Jain Tea Stall, belonging to the petitioner 1 Nirmal Kumar. It was found that the articles of food stored for sale were not covered at all. It was also alleged that the vessel containing the milk was not coated with zinc-kalai licence was not exhibited in the hotel and the cooking media was also not indicated.3. During the course of investig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)220CTR(MP)172; [2008]305ITR181(MP); [2009]177TAXMAN154(MP)
Sanjay Yadav, J.1. The question of law involved in the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, preferred at the instance of the Revenue is as follows:Whether during the assessment year 2001-02, the amount received by the respondent on cessation of employment with his employer will be exempted from payment of income-tax under Section 17(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act?2. The sum of Rs. 27,50,000 represents that payment to the assessee, Shyam Sundar Chhaparia, on October 21, 2000, as a 'special compensation' for his agreement not to take up any competitive employment/ assignment in future as per the undertaking signed by him with the Aditya Birla group wherefrom he superannuated on September 30, 2000. The whole question here is, whether the money which the assessee so received after his retirement under a restrictive covenant as a special compensation, in respect of which he was assessed for the year 2001-02, part of his income for the year in question as contended by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1953CriLJ692
Radke, A.J.C.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellants under Section 21, Bhopal Public Safety Act, and Sections 147, 332 and 333, Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Code, by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment, all of which are to run concurrently. One Pannalal, who has also been similarly convicted and sentenced, has filed a separate appeal No. 45 of 1951, and this judgment will decide his case also.2. The facts of the prosecution story are that the District Magistrate, Bhopal, had banned the holding of meetings and taking out of processions under Section 15, Bhopal Public Safety Act, and yet in contravention of the order passed by the District Magistrate, the three accused, along with others, took out a procession on 21.12.1948, and were about to hold a meeting. While they were prevented from taking out the procession from the railway station to the city, they stopped at the level crossing. As they used force and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT324
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Writ Petition and the Civil Revision have been preferred by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Banapura, Tehsil Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti'). In Civil Revision No. 238/08 order passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 43-A/05 on 29-2-08 has been assailed whereas in W.P. No. 17381/07 orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in the matter of interim grant of injunction have been assailed by the Samiti. Both the cases have been listed before the Division Bench as per order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 21-1-2009. Consequently, civil revision is also heard by us.2. The facts in short giving rise to the instant suit indicates that Chandra Shekhar Raghuvanshi has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Samiti, Director of Mandi Board, Bhopal and State of M.P. through Collector, Hoshangabad and for setting aside resolution passed by the Samiti dated...
Tag this Judgment!