Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-14-1993
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ342
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. The question involved in this writ petition is, whether a petitioner can justly invoke the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India to seek Court's direction to the State commanding it to do an illegal act in favour of the petitioner, if only because the State in its. action committed the same kind of illegal acts in favour of some others? Couched in this verbiage, the question admits of a simple anwser in the negative. But the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to make out a plausible case of hostile discrimination against the petitioner.2. First the facts. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Udenia is an M.B.B.S. and Assistant Surgeon in the employment of the State of Madhya Pradesh since 14-4-1988. After having worked in outlying Government hospitals, he is working in the Department of Medicine in G. R. Medical College and J. A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior since November, 1989 vide Annexure P-IV On 1-6-1992, the Director of Health Services, Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-25-1993
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ443
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a petition under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, the 'Act'), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for refund of Court fee paid in excess by the plaintiffs/appellants on the memorandum of Second Appeal No. 39 of 1983, decided on 8-8-1983, and on the memo of Civil Appeal No. 188A/81, decided by the District Judge, Shivpuri, on 7-2-1983, between Harvilas and others and Tulsiram and others.2. This Court dismissed the second appeal summarily, observing thus :--'After the matter was remanded by this court, the plaint appears to have been amended, claiming relief of specific performance of the contract, though no court-fee had been paid. Both the courts took the view that in view of the order of the High Court the suit will be treated to be a suit for refund of money, i.e., Rs. 3,400/- only, and not for specific performance of a contract. The appellants are aggrieved by this part of the judgment and decree and submit that it is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-09-1993
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ300
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The plaintiff/petitioner has come up in revision feeling aggrieved by an order of the trial Court directing his application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment in the plaint to be rejected.2. It appears that the plaintiff has in his favour an agreement dated 12-3-1985 to sell the suit property executed by the defendant/non-petitioner. The time limited for performance of the agreement was till 7- 6-1985. In the year 1991, the plaintiff apprehending a breach of the agreement by the defendants filed a suit seeking merely a declaration of agreement in his favour and an injunction restraining breach thereof. The relief of specific performance of contract was not prayed for. On 29-6- 1992, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the necessary pleadings and relief of specific performance. The trial Court formed an opinion that the proposed amendment not only changed the nature of the suit, but the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-16-1993
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ961
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This first appeal presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ECode') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1988 rendered by Vlth Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge. Indore in COS No. 89-A/86 thereby passing the decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (for short the 'Act') together with mesne profits @Rs. 115/- per months.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit-house No. 30, Bada Sarafa, Indore originally belonged to the Joint Family of deceased Tejpal and deceased Guljarilal. On partition by a registered partition deed dated 25-2-1953, this suit house fell to the share of Guljarilal. The respondents are the sons of late Guljarilal and the appellant is the son of Tejpal. The respondents came with a case that the appellant occupied the first-floor and one room on the ground-floor as the licensee of the respondents. This licence was terminated by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-23-1993
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ998
M.V. Tamaskar, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 178-A/1981 decided by Xth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, on 21-4-1986, arising out of Civil Suit No. 28-A/1979 decided on 29-7-1981 by the Civil Judge, Class II, Sanwer.2. This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law :'(i) Whether the learned Judge having found that lands in suit are admittedly ancestral properties, has not erred in passing a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff?(ii) Whether the learned Judge has not erred in invoking Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act for founding a right in the plaintiff to claim partition?'3. The material facts which are involved in this appeal are as under :One Bondar had two sons - Bhagirath and Chitar. Bondar died some 50 years back. Bondar's other brother namely Kisan also died after the death of Bondar. Bhagirath had one son and one daughter - Jagannath and Ramkunwarbai. Jaga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-24-1993
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ874
S.K. Chawla, J.1. Appellant Betu, aged about 20 years, has been convicted under Sections 341,323 and 376, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 1 months, 6 months and 5 years respectively for the said offences by Sessions Judge, Gwalior, by judgment dated 2-3-1993 in Sessions Trial No. 59/89.2. It may be mentioned at the very outset, without meaning to pre-judge the appellant's case, that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code. After the year 1983, when original Section 376 was substituted by a new section, there can be no conviction of an accused of the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code as such. There has to be a conviction, if at all, either under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) of Section 376, Indian Penal Code. It will be seen that the offence under sub-section (2) is not only punishable with higher minimum sentence but presumption about absence of consent under Section 114A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1993
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1825
S.K. Chawla, J.1. Accused Ram Charan has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 376. I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years inflicted thereunder.2. The prosecution story rested on the evidence of the prosecutrix Mst. Kalia (P.W. 2) and the evidence of Kanghi (P.W. 3), a person who chanced to be in a neighbouring house. Mst. Kalia is a married Woman aged about 25 years. The accused Ram Charan is a Chowkidar of the village and lives in the locality of the prosecutrix. Both belong to the same caste, namely, chamar. The evidence of Mst. Kalia is that in broad day light at about 4 p.m. the accused came to her house located in the midst of other houses. She was sitting outside the door of her house. The accused dragged her inside the room of her house and there threw her down. The accused then had forcible carnal knowledge of her. She was not a consenting party. She had put up resistance. Her bangles got broken and buttons of her blouse got uprooted. She...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-02-1993
Reported in : AIR1993MP214
S.K. Jha, C.J. 1. We have assembled today for the purpose of deciding only one incidental matter on which learned counsel for the parties insist. We give our ruling at the outset before we proceed further to hear the counsel for the parties on merits of the writ petition. That limited question as to the legality or propriety of the Governor either in his official capacity or by name described as the Governor, respondent No. 6 in the writ petition was warranted in law or was. precluded by virtue of the legal immunity attached to the Governor on account of his acts done or purported to be done in his official capacity under the provisions of Article 361 of the Constitution of India. While on the one hand, Shri N. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner insists that Shri Kunwar Mehmood Ali, Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh was a necessary party and no immunity could be enjoyed by him qua a Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution, It was not only proper but legal for him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-02-1993
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2399
T.N. Singh, J.1. Both petitioners are convicted Under Section 7, the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Seva (Bina Tikat Yatra Ki Rok) Adhiniyam, 1974, for short, the 'Act' by Special Motor Vehicles Magistrate, Gwalior. The sentence imposed in one case is fine of Rs. 50/-, in default simple imprisonment for five days; and in the other case, the fine is Rs. 100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for seven days. Having preferred revisions unsuccessfully, they are now assailing their convictions and sentences in this Court, separately, under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. for short, the 'Cr. P.C.' or the 'Code'.2. During the course of analogous hearing of the two petitions it was found necessary by one of us (S. K. Dubey, J.) to refer to larger bench the question agitated before him on the basis of a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Hiralal Gopilal Rathore's case 1988 Cr LJ 457. In his view, the decision required reconsideration because a Division Bench of this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-20-1993
Reported in : AIR1994MP74; 1993(0)MPLJ572
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners are bhumiswamis of lands notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 4-7-91 to be acquired for 'public purpose' and challenge legal validity thereof by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The lands in question have also been declared under Section 6 of the Act as acquired and awards in respect thereof passed by the respondent No. 1. The declaration dated 24-2-92 (Annexure R-IV) under Section 6 of the Act and awards dated 27-5-1992 are also challenged as illegal in this petition. 2. It appears that pursuant to the industrial policy of the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh, industrialists from all over the country were offered concessions, facilities and benefits and invited to establish industries in the State. The respondent No. 4, pursuant to this invitation gave their consent to the Industries Department of the State and Audyogik Vikas Nigam to establ...
Tag this Judgment!