Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ271
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-8-1990 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1988 whereby the petitioner's objection that for reason of non-compliance with the proviso below Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), the committal order dated 4-10-1988 passed by the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, Under Section 203 ibid is vitiated and the Sessions Court could not take cognizance of the various offences against him, has been negatived.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these: The Narcotic Inspector, Indore filed against the petitioner and his co-accused Salim Mohammad, the non-applicant No. 2, a criminal complaint in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore alleging commission of offences Under Section 8/21 and other sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho tropic Substances A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ452
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. The judgment-debtors have approached this Court for the sixth time, aggrieved of an order passed on 10-8-1990 by the executing Court in Execution Case No. 8-A/1983x83, complaining that the executing Court illegally did not decide the objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, about the executability of the decree, which according to the judgment-debtors, is a nullity.2. The execution case arose out of a decree passed in a suit instituted by the wife of judgment-debtor No. 1, who has deserted her. The suit was for recovery of the articles worth Rs. 80,000/-, which were illegally retained by the husband. The plaintiff averred that her marriage with judgment-debtor No. 1 took place on 25th September, 1981, according to Muslim rites by Nikah' in which Mahr (dower) of Rs. 20,500/- was agreed upon by judgment-debtor No. 1; because . the husband misbehaved with her, ill-treated her and created such circumstances that it was impossible for her to live with the husb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP180; 1991(0)MPLJ98
K.L. Issrani, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 17-2-1990 passed by the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1990 refusing to grant temporary injunction against the recovery of the telephone bills of the appellant.2. In this case, the respondents haveraised a preliminary objection that the application of the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator is not maintainable because the dispute is not covered under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. For deciding the preliminary objection, it is necessary to mention some facts here. The appellant was nominated as a member of the M. P. Telecom Advisory Committee on 28-6-1985. His term was extended up to 30-6-1989. In his capacity as a member of the M.P.T.A.C., a free telephone No. 28888 was provided to him and was installed at his residence. No rent was to be charged for the said telephone and 1200 local calls bimonthly were allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990MPLJ799
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Six petitioners have made a common cause staking their claim to admission in the State Engineering Colleges for the academic session 1989-90. They all appeared in the Entrance Test of 1989, conducted by the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter, 'Board', third respondent) and secured marks in the range of 47 to 48.7 percent. When hearing of the petition was taken up on 3-5-1990, it appeared that there was conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court and it was also found that the two views were irreconcilable. This is how this larger Bench has taken seisin of the matter.2. We may immediately refer, therefore, to those decisions. Indeed, we may observe also that the petitioners relied on the decision rendered by the Division Bench at the Main Seat on 24-4-1990 in the case of the Manoj Verma and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M. P. No. 4916 of 1989, and submitted that their case being same as that of the petitioners in that cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)IIILLJ897MP; 1991(0)MPLJ513
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.11.1989 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Cr. Case No. 6 of 1990 whereby he has under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code') ordered issue of process against the petitioner on the complaint filed by the Factory Inspector, Indore.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these: The petitioner is an occupier within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). According to the complaint he contravened the provisions of Section 48 of the said Act and Rule 87 of the Madhya Pradesh Factories Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules'). He is, therefore, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act.3. The learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and passed the impugned order.4. It is not in controversy that the impugned order is revisable. In this connection reference may use...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1991)DMC193
P.C. Pathak, J.1. The defendant wife has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act') against a decree of divorce under Section 13(1-A)(i) of the Act.2. On 23-11-1979, the respondent filed petition for divorce on the allegations that their marriage was solemnised on 5-2-1976 at Khamgaon, District Buldhana, State of Maharashtra whereafter she came to reside with him at Raipur. She stayed with him hardly for 3-4 days. During the stay, she did not permit him to consummate the marriage. She confessed that she was infatuated to some boy-friend, and led the life of unchastity with him. After she was taken away by her parents, he learnt that she carried on adulterous relations with several boy friends and lastly that she had withdrawn herself from his society for reasons best known to her. He therefore prayed for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on grounds under Section 13(1A)(i) & (ii) of the Act. On 14-10-1981, the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1991)DMC444
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This appeal is filed by the main contesting defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court passing decree for maintenance in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs. 200/-p.m. from the date of suit.2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the suit on 17-10-1973 claiming maintenance of Rs. 34,750/- on the allegations that respondent No. 1 is the legally married wife of the appellant and through their wedlock respondent No. 2 was born. Since the appellant neglected to maintain, she for herself and as guardian of the minor son filed the suit claiming maintenance.3. The suit was contested by the appellant. During the pendency of the suit, the trial Court fixed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month by order dated 3-9-1985 to both the respondents. Since who appellant failed to pay that amount, the learned trial Court, by order dated 19-3-1986, struck off the defence and adjourned the suit for evidence of both the parties to 4-4-1986. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2163
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is complainant's application Under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. challenging the legality of grant of bail to the non-applicants by order dt. 23-10-1989 passed by Shri M. S. A. Siddiquee, Sessions Judge, Shahdol in bail application No. 940/89, directing release of the non-applicants on bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each. The applicant not only prays for revocation of the said bail but also that the non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 be arrested and committed to judicial custody pending trial.2. The applicant is the father of late Smt. Sushma Gupta who unfortunately died in the night between 7/8th Oct. 1989. There appears to be no dispute that the said, Smt. Sushma Gupta was married to Shri Pankaj Gupta, the son of the non-applicants 2 and 3 on 2nd Feb. 1987 and a son was born to her on 7-9-1988. The applicant had lodged a report with the Officer Incharge of Police Station, Shahdol, on 8-10-1989 alleging that the non-app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990MPLJ371
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. In this Reference, we are required by the learned Single Judge to answer the following two questions framed by him:'(1) Whether in view of amendment in section 115, Civil Procedure Code, made by M.P. Act No. 29/84 an interim order passed by an appellate or revisional Court not finally disposing of the proceedings is open to revision by High Court?(2) Whether the law contemplates anything like an 'original order' passed by a superior Court in a pending appeal or revision as distinguished from an appellate or revisional order?'2. Indeed, the learned Judge (R. C. Lahoti, J.) was confronted with the question of maintainability of revision and decisions were cited before him by both sides. He found conflicting views expressed by this Court in the decisions cited and felt compelled to make a Reference. As regards facts, suffice to say this much for the purpose of disposal of this Reference that in the revision, an order passed by learned Additional District Judge under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(33)LC95(MP)
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J.1. This is a petition filed by two petitioners jointly. Petitioner No. 1 carries on the business of stitching HDPE woven sacks and petitioner No. 2 carries on the business of printing HOPE woven sacks. According to the petitioners, on receiving orders from their customers they receive HDPE fabrics from the Manufacturers/dealers directed by the customers. The petitioners only do the job work of stitching and printing the sacks. In case the customers desire delivery outside Indore, then as per their instructions the sacks are despatched through the transport as directed by them. The Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, has exempted woven sacks of polymers of ethylene or propylene or its combination thereof, falling under heading No. 46.01 or 63.01 of the Schedule from the whole of the duty of Excise specified in that Schedule vide notification No. 223/86-CE, dated 3.4.1986. The aforesaid no...
Tag this Judgment!