Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1017
S.D. Zha, J.1. This judgment shall also govern disposal of Criminal Revision No. 24 of 1986 (Prabhawati v. Ghanshyam) presented by complainant Prabhawati for enhancement of sentence.2. The Convict-appellant challenges his conviction under Sections 354, 380 and 506 (B), I.P.C. and sentences of one year, one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- in default one month further R. I. and six months R.I. respectively for the same awarded by Shri Section M. Naw-lakha, Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge Mandsaur at Garoth, by his judgment dated 13-8-1985.3. The challan was put up against the appellant by S.H.O. Gandhi Sagar, District Mandsaur, for offences under Sections 459, 376 read with Sections 511 and 380, I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that in the night intervening 20th-21st June, 1984 at midnight at village Navli, Prabhawati w/o. Jagannath (P.W. 1) was sleeping alone in her house. Her husband had gone away to Kota and his elder brother's son Rajesh (P. W. 3) was sleeping ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003MP190; 2002(4)MPHT343; 2002(4)MPLJ354
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiffs under Section 115, CPC against the order by which their appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r), CPC challenging the order of the rejection of their application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC filed in the suit, has been dismissed.2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the present revision is not maintainable in view of the proviso to Section 115(1), CPC. Reliance is placed by him on the decision of this Court in Sawal Singh v. Smt. Ramsakhi, 2002(4) M.P.H.T. 200 = 2002 (II) MPJR 169. This objection has been raised in several other revision petitions pending before this Court. Therefore, arguments were heard at length. Sarvashri Ravish Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, R.P. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, R.P. Jain, R.S. Tiwari, P.D. Tiwari, Alok Aradhe and Ajay Mishra, Advocates have also addressed this Court on this point.3. The proviso to Section 115(1), CPC reads as under:--'Provid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT472
N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 25-10-83 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhabua in Civil Suit No. 3-B/1981, whereby the suit filed by the appellants for compensation was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellants who were minors filed a suit against the respondents for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 17-6-77 alleging that deceased Maltidevi Gidwani was the mother of the appellants and was working in the office of Animal Husbandry, Jhabua as Accountant. The salary of the deceased Maltidevi was Rs. 373/- per month. It was alleged that on 19-7-1976 Smt. Maltidevi Gidwani was hospitalized at District Hospital, Jhabua where she delivered a son Laxman. It was alleged that after the delivery Maltidevi was pressurized by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for T.T. operation and upon her denying the deceased and her husband were threatened that the deceased and her husband shall be terminated from their job an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972MP54
Raina, J.1. This reference arises out of a revision petition filed by the plaintiff Choudhary Gulabchand Jain. He filed a suit against the defendant Bhama for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,187/- on the basis of an entry signed by the defendant in the account books of the plaintiff. The entry reads as follows:--8187 fglkc dj ckdh ysuk jgk eh vlkM++onh 3 la- 2O2O rk- 10&6&63 :i;k ,D;klh lkS lkklh 8187 :i;k ckdh ysukA n% ekekuk;dThe trial Court held that it was a bond within the meaning of the Stamp Act and directed the plaintiff to pay the duty and penalty which is to be charged for the bond. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff filed the revision petition. Shivdayal. J., before whom the revision came up for hearing, referred the question whether the entry in the account books was a bond within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following terms:--'Although it can be said with regard to the expression 'Baqi Dena' that it amounts to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ462MP; 1993(0)MPLJ805
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of termination of his service dated January 23, 1986 (Annexure P-6) as also the appellate order dated September 11, 1987 (Annexure P-8), confirming the said order.2. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as a Lower Division Clerk by order dated April 21, 1982 of the Registrar, Jiwaji University, Gwalior. Previous to that, the petitioner had worked intermittently on that post. The petitioner continued to work on the temporary post until November 6, 1984, when by an order passed on that day, he was placed on probation for a period of two years. But before that, on March 23, 1984 the petitioner was granted 10% additional allowance on his basic salary with effect from April 21, 1982 for working on the post of Upper Division Clerk. On November 15, 1984, he was granted further allowance at the rate of 20% on his basic salary with effect from April 1, 1984 on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP5
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This is a petition for revision submitted by the petitioner Gopikishan Munnalal who was a witness in Civil Suit No. 505 of 1954 of the Civil Judge's Court at Mhow. The petition is directed against the order passed by the trial Court for recovery of the amount of his personal bond given by him for his appearance on 24-9-1957.2. Facts material for the consideration of the legality and propriety of the order are as follows:Petitioner is a Railway servant and was cited as a witness by the defendant Ramnarayan and summons was issued on his home address in Rajagali Mhow for appearance on 20-8-1957. The summons was served but the witness failed to attend. No diet charges however were tendered to the witness as required under Order 16 Rule 3 C. P. C. The Court, therefore, in ignorance of the fact that he was a Railway Servant directed issue of Muchalka-warrant for appearance on 24-9-1957. The petitioner gave a personal bond in pursuance of the warrant and actually app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1979MP124
C.P. Sen, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award of compensation of Rs. 18,000/-given to the respondents 1 to 3.2. The facts not in dispute are that appellant Ramesh Kumar was the owner of motor-cycle No. MPS 2689 and it was insured with the respondent No. 4, Ruby General Insurance Company Ltd. under a comprehensive policy. Ramesh Kumar owned a rice mill at Silyari where the deceased Budharu was employed as a mechanic/helper but he left his job on 3-1-1970. However, in the early hours of 16-2-1970, the appellant came to the house of the deceased at village Pano-sari and took him on his motor-cycle for starting his Mill. On their way to Silyari, the motor-cycle met with an accident and because of the head injuries the deceased died on the spot. The appellant was unhurt. According to the claimants, respondent No. 1 is the father, respondent No. 2 is the mother and respondent No. 3 is the widow of the deceased an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3749
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'), is against the order dated 25-3-1987, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Criminal Revision 171/85 preferred against the order dated 4-9-1985 passed in Criminal Case No. 191/84 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Morena.2. Facts leading to this revision are thus the non-petitioner/complainant Dr. Surendra Singh and the petitioner/accused Rajendra Singh are real brothers. The non-petitioner filed a complaint Under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC') and Section 45 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') against the petitioner, on the allegations that the petitioner/accused was a Deputy Ranger, who was convicted and sentenced for an offence Under Section 409 IPC on 31-7-1964 in Criminal Case No. 202/64 by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Tikamgarh, that conviction and sentence was maintained by the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)152CTR(MP)311
ORDERBY THE COURT:This is a reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of assessee and on that basis, this Court called reference from Tribunal and the following question of law has been referred for answer by this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the benefit of peak credit could not be granted to the assessee ?'2. Brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee, a registered firm, carries on the business of sale and purchase of Kirana goods on whole sale basis. The ITO scrutinised the books of accounts of the assessee-firm and especially the cash book maintained by the assessee-firm. In the cash book, he found that there were entries in the account of 'Haste Khate'. The said credit and debit on account of Haste Khate was posted in the general ledger at p. 67. The ITO was of the view that whenever the assessee found himself hardpressed for money, it used this account as a nov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cri. Appeal No.2279/1996 Killu, aged 50 years, son of Baldeva Kachhi, Resident Of Village Jaitpur, P.S. Kishangarh, Distt. Chhatarpur Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO P.S. Kishangarh, Distt. Chhatarpur Respondent .. Shri Shyam Vishwakarma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for respondent-State. JUDGMENT (8/1/13) The appellant stands convicted under Section 8 read with 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default, to suffer R.I. for 2 years. Corresponding judgment dated 12.12.1996 passed by Special Judge (under the Act), Chhatarpur, in Special Case No.36/96 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 9/3/1996 at about 12.30 p.m., on being informed that appellant was involved in an illegal cultivation of opium poppy on the field lo...
Tag this Judgment!