Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2821
ORDERK.M. Pandey, J.1. The applicant in this case prays for bail on the ground that he was not supplied copies of the charge-sheet and other papers in accordance with the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. within 90 days with the result that he is entitled to bail and he has relied on 1988 Jab LJ 444 : (1989 Cri LJ 1553) for it.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is involved in a case Under Section 302, 394/34, I.P.C. along with co-accused, namely, Ram Avtar and Chhidda. He was taken in custody on 2-8-91 and copy of the charge-sheet was not supplied to the applicant in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. No doubt in this case challan was filed within 95 days but the copies of the challan were supplied after two days of the expiry of the 90 days.3. The applicant contended before the Sessions Judge that since the period of 90 days expired and the applicant has not been supplied with copies of the charge-sheet, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ151
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year, in respect of the land situated at Survey Nos. 278 and 279 (new survey No. 216), area 16 'Bigha' 12 'Biswa', in village Amkheda, Tahsil Chachoda, District Guna.2. The appeal was admitted on 12-7-1991 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : --'1. Whether the plaintiff had acquired the rights of a Bhumiswami? 2. Whether the order directing the prosecution of the plaintiff is in accordance with law? 3. Whether the defendants had a right to take over possession of the land in dispute after the abolition of Zamindari? 4. Had the defendants become 'Pakka' tenant as claimed?'3. The facts in brief are thus:According to the plaintiff the land in dispute was given to him on Patta' (ExtP/1) dated 2-8-1943 by Kishorilal, the ex-Zamindar; the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ104
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. A common order in being passed in this petition and Misc. Petition No. 481 of 1992 Ajay Singh s/o Shri Arjun Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which is on the same subject matter.2. This petition arises in the course of a Commission of Enquiry known as Churhat Lottery Commission. The petitioner challenges notification dated 9-1-1992 (Annexure-M), appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, retired Judge of Allahabad High Court as the sole member of the commission in substitution of Hon'ble Shri Justice G. G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, who resigned from the membership of the commission. The two notifications of appointment of Justice G. G. Sohani and thereafter Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, have resulted in the ouster of Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, the then sitting Judge of Madras High Court (now retired) from membership of the Commission.3. In a public interest litigation initiated by Shri Kailash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3199
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of Criminal Revisions Nos. 192, 1991, Union of India v. Hargovind; 193/1991, Union of India v. Radhey Shyam and 194 1991, Union of India v. Mohanlal, as the common central question involved in all the four petitions is whether in the absence of constitution and establishment of a Special Court under Section 36 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act'), the Sessions Court under Section 36D, which deals with transitional provisions until a Special Court is constituted Under Section 36, can take cognizance and try the offences under Sections 8/18 of the Act, committed after enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 without the case being committed to the Court of Session.2. The Act was amended by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 2 of 1989) (for short, the 'Amending Act'), which came into force from 29-5-1989...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ936
ORDERS.K. Jha, C.J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts are not in dispute.A Civil Suit was instituted by the petitioners which was registered as Civil Suit No. 27-A of 1991 in the Court of 5th Civil Judge, Class II, Rewa. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the trial Court by the petitioners. The trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction by an order dated 24-9-1991. Against the aforesaid order, the sole respondent who was the defendant in the suit filed an appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 54 of 1991 in the Court of Third Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Rewa. By an order dated 22-10-1991, the appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondent opposite party and vacated the order of temporary (interim) injunction passed by the trial Court. A copy of the trial Court order has been marked Annexure-P6 to the writ petition. A copy of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP175
T.N. Singh, J. 1. One short, but important question of law has been raised for our decision in this matter. Whether a second appeal lies in respect of an order passed in a proceeding instituted under Section 275, Quanoon Mal (of erstwhile Gwalior State)? That is extracted below. nQk 275 nkok QkDd jgu ;k tjs jgu & vxj nkokQkDd jgu ;k tjs jgu fdlh nLrkost jftLVh 'kqnk dks : ls djuk ykfte vkos rks panrhu lky rglhynkj lkgc ds btykl esa vkB vkus ds LVkEi ij nk;j gksxkA rglhynkj dsgqDe ds vihy lwckr esa gksxk vkSj gqDe lwck lkgkc ukfrd gksxk-2. Obviously, it is not necessary, therefore, to refer to all aspects of the long travail which parties have suffered during the course of long 20 years' life of this lis, but to the undisputed facts relevant to the controversy, a reference is still necessary. Hardeva, prede-cessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was recorded as a Pakka Krishak of land measuring 6 Bighas and 6 Biswas, in village Mohammadpur, Pargana and District Gwalior. He submitted an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992MP318; 1992(0)MPLJ953
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has made a prayer for directing the respondent No. 2 the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, (in short, the 'Board'), to reconsider the tenders, including that of the petitioner, but excluding the one submitted by the respondent No. 4 M/s D.C. Industrial Plants Services Ltd., (in short, the 'DCIPS'), 'for complete Design, Manufacture, Assembly, Testing at Manufacturer's work, Supply, Handling all along, Erection, Testing and Commissioning etc. of Ash Handling System for Sanjay Gandhi Thermal Power Station (2 x 210 MW) at Birsinghpur Pali-P.O., Distt. Shahdol (M.P.) as fully described in Tender Specification' in response to its tender notice dated 23-5-1990 (Annexure D), as amended by Addendum dated 4-9-1990 (Annexure F); after quashing its decision dated 14-6-1991 (Board's Annexure 5) for awarding the contract to the respondent No. 4 DCIPS and the Letter of Intent dated 21-6-1991 (Annexure J) issued in its favour.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1105MP; 1992(0)MPLJ334
1. A common order is passed in this appeal and the connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 21 and 22 of 1984, in which the employer is common although the employees are different and common questions of law and fact arise. The three Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 26, 1984, passed in Misc. Petitions Nos. 1964, 1965 and 1463 of 1982, Employers In Relation to Anand Cinema, Jabalpur v. Mohan Tiwari and Ors., 1985 MPLJ 765, dismissing the above three Writ Petitions filed by the employer, in the cases of the three employees.2. The learned single Judge upheld the award dated October 22, 1982 of the Labour Court passed in common in the cases of the three employees whereby the action of the employer of terminating the services of the employees was held to be a case of illegal 'retrenchment' hence was ab initio void and the employees entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. 3. In the three L.P.As. common qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ327
ORDERS.K. Jha, C.J.1. On a difference of opinion between B. C. Varma, J. recorded on 13-2-1991 and that of R.D. Shukla, J. recorded on 24-6-1991, the case has come up before me.2. The question for determination in this appeal is as to whether the legal proceedings (the suit) be stayed and the matter for adjudication be referred to an arbitrator, by invoking the power of the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The Court below has directed that further proceedings in the suit be stayed and the dispute within the parties be referred to arbitration. The plaintiff preferred this appeal against the order of the trial Court. B. C. Varma, J. by his order dated 13-2-1991, was of the opinion that the appeal be allowed and the order dated 24-11-1987 passed by the lower Court staying the proceedings in the suit be set aside and the application under Section 34 of the Act be rejected, and the trial Court should now proceed with the suit in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ292
ORDERK.K. Verma, J.1. Counsel are heard on appellant's application dated 17-12-1991 purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 3B inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by a Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act.2. The suit was the heading 'Suit for declaration of title and possession of land.' In the relief clause the first relief was: 'Delivery of possession of agricultural land.' At paragraph 2 of the instant application it has been averred that the appellant does not have any agricultural land except the lands in dispute and that no ceiling case is pending in respect of his lands and that the appellant has no information of any such proceedings. Order 1, Rule 3B runs as follows :'3B. Conditions for entertainment of suits. - (1) . No suit or proceeding for, -(a) declaration of title or any right over any agricultural land, with or without any other relief; or(b) specific performance of any contract for transfer of any agricultural land with or without any other relief, shall be entertained...
Tag this Judgment!