Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-26-1998
Reported in : 1998(1)MPLJ612
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, rejecting the application of the defendant-applicant praying for the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has now approached this Court by means of the present revision under section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel representing the respondents-landlords and have also carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. An application under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act which is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if it was a plaint, was filed by the plaintiff-landlord, Dwarika Prasad Singhal seeking eviction of the defendant, National Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-13-1998
Reported in : AIR1999MP1; 1998(2)MPLJ618
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge whereunder allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, the order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal seeking setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Auihority granting the stage carriage permit to the said respondent has been quashed, the objec-tor/respondents in the writ petition have now come up in Letters Palent Appeal seeking redress praying for the selling aside of the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent, and have carefully perused the record. 3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No. I had moved an application praying for the grant of a permit on 28-10-1996 for service of a stage carriage of two return trips daily on the route As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-22-1998
Reported in : 2000ACJ1220; 1999(1)MPLJ597
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 23-7-1990 passed in Case No. 108/89(Fatal) by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Jabalpur.2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are thus :The deceased Ravibhan Singh Thakur was employed as Forest Guard in regular establishment under the Field Director, Project Tiger (Kanha) Mandla. On 15-3-1989 during the course of his employment the deceased found a 'cheetal' an antelope with white spots resembling a deer entangled in weeds of a water tank. The deceased tried to save the cheetal by removing weeds, but unfortunately he also got entangled in the weeds and met his untimely death. The State and its Field Director did not deposit the compensation before the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the Act within one month from the date it fell due. Hence the widow of the deceased filed an application und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-14-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)MPLJ74
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Extinction of one's Liberty amounts to crucifixion of one's soul. Because of this feeling a noble soul had demanded 'Give me liberty or give me death'. It is a cherished ideal that echoes the inner desire of every human soul. No one would like to barter it for the entire wealth of the world. The cause of liberty is treated as the cause of the creator. One's freedom, may be that of an accused or a convict can be curtailed in accordance with the terms of procedure established by 'law' but how long that curtailment should continue as far as an accused is concerned is the seminal question that arises for consideration in this application for obtaining concession of bail - third attempt by the petitioner who has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 21/97 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147 and 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The singular contention is that the delay in disposal of the trial in S. T. No. 86/97 entitles the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-03-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)MPLJ16
C.K. Prasad, J.1. Appellant, the writ petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 20-2-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4049/95 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has preferred this appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent of the Court. By the said order, learned Single Judge has dismissed his writ petition.2. Appellant was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Moha Putka and by show-cause notice dated 19-4-1995 (Annexure P/4 of the Writ Petition) he was asked to show cause as to why he be not removed from the office of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Later on, by order dated 17-7-1995, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 39(1 )(b) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, he was put under suspension with immediate effect. Appellant challenged the same and prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders by filing a writ petition which as stated earlier, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It is relevant here to state that wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-10-1998
Reported in : AIR1999MP205; 1999(1)MPLJ667
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The parties are heard finally.2. In a suit for injunction filed by the applicant/plaintiff -- Cantonment Board, they also prayed for an injunction against the non-applicant/defendant that he be restrained from raising illegal constructions. After hearing the parties, the trial Court, after appreciating the facts, rejected the application. In appeal against the said order, though the order was confirmed but the real question in controversy was not considered. The first appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal on the ground that if the applicant/Cantonment Board which has to maintain the buildings and has to grant building permissions if has power and authority to demolish the illegal constructions, then an injunction in favour of such an authority is not required. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this revision petition. I have heard the parties at length.3. In the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court misdirected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-14-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3455
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Extinction of one's liberty amounts to crucifixion of one's soul. Because of this feeling a noble soul had demanded 'Give me liberty or give me death'. It is a cherished ideal that echoes the inner desire of every human soul. No one would like to bArticleer it for the entire wealth of the world. The cause of liberty is treated as the cause of the creator. One's freedom, may be that of an accused or a convict can be curtailed in accordance with the terms of procedure established by 'law' but how long that, curtailment should continue as far as an accused is concerned is the seminal question that arises for consideration in this application for obtaining concession of bail-third attempt by the petitioner who has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 21/97 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147 and 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The singular contention is that the delay in disposal of the trial in S.T. No. 86/97 entitles t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-09-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3045
Rajeev Gupta, J. 1. The appellants, in all eight in number, have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21-12-1987, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagarin S.T.No. 117/87, whereby the appellants stand convicted under Sections 148, 302/149 0000appellant No. 7 Anirudh Singh under Section 302 simpliciter) and Sections 324/149, of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC), with sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each respectively.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that:--(A) Accused Devi Singh, who was issueless, had asked Khoob Singh (since deceased) and his brother Shivraj, who were residents of a village in Tehsil Sironj, to come and settle down in his village Dhana. Accused-Devi Singh also offered Khoob Singh and Shivraj his agricultural land situated in village Dhana for cultivation and persuaded them to sell their agricultural land situated in Tehsil Sironj. Accused-Devi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-17-1998
Reported in : II(1999)ACC401; 1999ACJ711
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal by the State has been preferred against the award of Rs. 1,20,000 (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand) dated 5.5.1993 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 134 of 1989 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur.2. The case of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was that deceased Police Constable Prafulla Kumar Tripathi was the husband of respondent No. 1, Sushila Tripathi and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. On 5.4.1989 the Police Inspector (Traffic) was checking motor vehicles at Pachpedhi Naka, Ring Road, Raipur, in connection with Traffic Safety Week. The deceased Police Constable Prafulla Kumar Tripathi, respondent No. 5 Laxmidhar Diwan and other police officials were also there on duty. During the checking, Police Inspector (Traffic) took a scooter No. CIR 7571 from its owner Prabhakar R. Ambilkar, respondent No. 6 and directed the deceased Police Constable Prafulla Kumar Tripathi to proceed on it along with respondent No. 5, Police Constable Laxmidhar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-09-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)MPLJ354
Rajeev Gupta, J.1. The appellants, in all eight in number, have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21-12-1987, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in S. T. No. 117/87, whereby the appellants stand convicted under Sections 148, 302/149 (appellant No. 7 Anirudh Singh under Section 302 simpliciter) and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC), with sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each respectively.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that:-(A) Accused Devi Singh, who was issue-less, had asked Khoob Singh (since deceased) and his brother Shivraj, who were residents of a village in Tehsil Sironj, to come and settle down in his village Dhana. Accused Devi Singh also offered Khoob Singh and Shivraj his agricultural land situated in village Dhana for cultivation and persuaded them to sell their agricultural land situated in Tehsil Sironj. Accused Devi Singh is s...
Tag this Judgment!