Madhya Pradesh Court December 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of M.P. Vs. Rajesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2466
R.D. Shukla, J.1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-5-92 of the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur passed in S.T. No. J 78/91 whereby accused-respondents have been acquitted of offences punishable Under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC for having committed attempt to murder of Jagdish and for having caused simple injuries by dangerous weapon to Babulal in pursuance of common intention of their all on 23-4-91 at 9 p.m. in village Jhanker.2. The prosecution story in brief is that accused Rajesh and Ajaykumar both arc sons of accused-respondent Shivnarain. D.W. 2 Urmtladcvi is the wife of Shivnarain.P.W. 2 Jagdish and P.W. 4 Rameshchandra are real brothers. It appears accused persons own a video hall and probably entertain persons.On the date of incident i.e. 23- 4-91 at about 9 P.M. Jagdish was urinating infronl of and at the junction of the house of Mariaklal' and accused Shivnarain. The same was objected to by Shivnarain. It is alleged that Shivnarain abused J...
Mullo Bai Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)MPLJ308
T.S. Doabia, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court wherein he came to the conclusion that the writ petition bearing No. 295 of 1995 preferred by the present appellant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. This opinion expressed by the learned single Judge is being assailed in the present appeal. In this appeal, additional grounds which have been taken be also noticed :(i) that, the appellant-Mullo Bai was also a person interested and she was required to be given a separate notice;(ii) that, it is also contended that a notice as required Under Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1961, was not served on the present appellant, and therefore, all subsequent proceedings taken are null and void.2. With a view to appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, a brief history vis-a-vis these acquisition proceedings be noticed.The Gwalior Town Improvement Tr...
Mahendra Singh Vs. M.P. Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)MPLJ371
T.S. Doabia, J.1. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen has expressed the opinion that the relief of restoration of electric connection can be sought by the present appellant tenant, under section 38 of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter refer as to Act). Before dealing with this aspect of the matter it would be apt to notice section 38 of the Act. This reads as under:'38. Cutting off or withholding essential supply or service. - (1) No landlord either himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf shall without just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the accommodation let to him.(2) If a landlord contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) the tenant may make an application to the Rent Controlling Authority complaining of such contravention.(3) If the Rent Controlling Authority on inquiry finds that the essential supply or service enjoyed b...
Sunil Gangrade Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)MPLJ133
R.D. Shukla, J.1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-6-1992 of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, passed in S. T. No. 139/86 whereby while acquitting two accused persons viz. Hariom and Baldeo, accused-appellant Sunil has been convicted Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Gangaram on 4-6-1986 at about 6.30 PM in village Birul and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story in brief is that P.W. 8 Karan and accused Sunil are running a betel shop probably on the road and outer skirts of village Birul. Gangaram was taking betel from the shop of Sunil. It appears that some amount (nearly Rs. 2/-) remained unpaid and, therefore on demand Sunil refused to give betel to Gangaram. There was some exchange of abuses in between the two. Some persons intervened and Sunil went to his house. It is further alleged that after some time Sunil, Hariom and Baldeo called Gangaram, abused him and accused Sunil stabbed him (Ga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›