Madhya Pradesh Court March 2001 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.
Raju Alias Virendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT290
Fakhruddin, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against this conviction under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to further three months' rigorous imprisonment, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No. 247/1991, decided on 7-7-1997.2. Briefly staled, prosecution story is that on 1-6-1991 accused Raju alias Virendra Singh went to the house of Atar Singh (P.W. 6); there a quarrel took place between the accused and Panchu. Accused beat Panchu with Lathi. Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3) and Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) intervened and asked the accused not to beat Panchu. Upon this, the accused went inside his house, brought a gun and fired at Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) who sustained gun-shot injuries on the right side of head, shoulder and face. It is said that on intervention of Atar Singh (P.W. 6) and his wife accused ran away from the spot. First information repo...
Jankidas Bairagi and Another Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT229; 2001(2)MPLJ477
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. The Madhya Pradesh Panchayal Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, has been amended by the 'Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2001' (Act No. 3/2001), published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan), dated January 22,2001. The statement of objects and reasons mentions the object which necessitated this amendment. It is to ensure comprehensive development of villages through decentralisation, to establish a system of direct democracy empowering Gram Sabhas with such powers so as to enable them to function as self-governing units and with a view to ensure greater community participation in decision making and implementation, Standing Committees and Adhoc Committees of the Gram Sabha are proposed to be constituted and necessary provisions made for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Women Members. To enable the Gram Sabhas to achieve economic self-sufficiency, necessary power to impose tax and constitution of Gram Kosh has been provided.2. The...
Nanlia and Others Vs. Raisingh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT160; 2001(2)MPLJ512
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is Second Appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. Thefollowing substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 7-10-1983at the time of admission of this appeal :--'(1) Whether the Appellate Court having held that the case set up by the plaintiffs that the land in suit was given on licence to the defendant in the year 1971 was not proved, committed an error of law in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff.(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theAppellant Court committed an error of law in holding that the defendants did not perfect their title by adverse possession ?'2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred to above are that, Motla was Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 23 area 3.25 acres of village Moran, Tahsil Alirajpur, District Jhabua. The plaintiffs are his sons. Defendant No. 2 Barjubai is his daughter. Defendant No. 1 Nanliya is the husband of defendant No. 2 Barjubai. The plaintiffs' case...
Mangilal Vs. Manakchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT191
S.P. Khare, J. 1. This second appeal is under Section 100, CPC. The following substantialquestion of law was formulated by order dated 13-9-83 at the time of admissionof this appeal:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Lower Appellate Court, which is the final Court so far as questions of facts are concerned has committed an error in dismissing the appeal in motion hearing ?'2. The facts relevant for the decision of the question referred to above are that--Defendant-Mangilal filed a complaint against the plaintiff Manakchand in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Susner alleging therein that the plaintiff has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs. 2900/- which was entrusted to him by the defendant. It was also alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff has committed theft of the account books belonging to the defendant. After an enquiry, as required by Section 200 and Section 202, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate found that the dis...
Bhanwarlal and Others Vs. Hiralal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT309; 2001(2)MPLJ502
S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial question of law was formulated by order dated 31-3-1984 at the time of admission of this appeal:--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Court committed an error of law in holding that before the filing of the suit the plaintiff had acquired title to the suit landby adverse possession and he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit by the defendants ?'2. The facts relevant for the decision of the question referred to above are that - Rupaji was owner of the house in dispute. Plaintiff Hiralal and defendant No. 1 Bhanwarlal are his sons.3. Plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the house in dispute from his father by unregistered Sale Deed dated 26-4-1951 (Ex. P-1) for Rs. 150/-and since then he was in exclusive possession of this house. The defendant No. 1 has taken possession of this house during the pendency of the suit on 3-4-1979.4. The case of the def...
Bruhtakar Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Maryadit Naitabali, Mandsaur Vs. Bheru ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT363
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 9-12-1983 at the time of admission of this appeal.(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learnedLower Appellate Court has committed an error of law by notproperly considering the Provisions of the M.P. Co-operativeSocieties Act, 1960 and the Rules made thereunder ?(ii) Whether the Civil Court in these circumstances had jurisdiction totry the suit in the present form ?2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred to above are that the defendant No. 1 Kamal singh borrowed money from the defendant No. 2, which is a Co-operative Society. The defendant No. 1 executed the declaration form dated 15-11-1968 (Exhibit D.1) in favour of the defendantNo. 2. It was as required by Section 41 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). In other words, the defendant No. 1 cr...
Dr. Anil Kumar Haritwal and Others Vs. Sant Prakash Gupta and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)826; 2001(3)MPHT325; 2001(2)MPLJ488
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid three revision petitions.2. Cr. Revisions 344 and 412 of 2000 have been filed against the order dated 29-8-2000, passed by the Trial Court whereby the application moved under Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to 'N.I. Act', whereunder the objection raised regarding competency to file complaint by a person in question has been rejected and the complaint was held to be maintainable, taking cognizance in the matter.3. The facts of Cr. Rev. No. 344/2000 are that the complainant Sant Prakash Gupta had made a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as per Annexure P-l, against the petitioners-accused on the ground that the petitioners/accused took a loan in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant through cheque No. 485117, dated 11-6-96 and in lieu thereof they had executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant to the effect that on demand they w...
Kesarbai and Others Vs. Narayan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT484; 2001(2)MPLJ338
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is second appeal under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code. The following substantial questions of law were formulate by order dated 5-8-83 at the time of admission of this appeal.1. Whether the finding arrived at by the First Appellate Court that there had been no previous oral partition between the parties is contrary to the evidence produced in the case ? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in finding that the property described in para 1 of the plaint, was the Joint Family Properly The facts relevant for decision of the questions referred to above are that plaintiff Narayan and defendant Hajari were real brothers. They had Khata numbers 139 and 141 in village Udankhedi. The lands included in these two khatas were joint family properly of both the brothers. Defendant Hajari was the elder brother. He acquired 1.411 hectares of land consisting of five khatas numbers as described in para 1 of the plaint. There is concurrent finding of the Trial C...
Vijay Kumar Ojha Vs. Superintendent of Police (Cbi), Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT66; 2001(3)MPLJ246
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 3-3-97 passed by the Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 61/96.2. The applicant is aggrieved by framing of charges under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (henceforth 'the Act of 1947'). He is also being prosecuted for the aforesaid offences with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. There are other charges framed under the provisions of Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of IPC. This Court is not concerned with the charges framed against the applicant under the provisions of Penal Code and Section 120B thereof so far as it is applicable to those offences. The revision is confined to framing of charges under Section 5(1)(d) read with Sections (2) of the Act and the allegations of conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC so far as it relates to those charges.3. It has been argued ...
Sujanmal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC382; 2003ACJ440; AIR2001MP247; 2001(4)MPHT47; 2001(2)MPLJ324
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 16-4-1983 at the time of admission of this appeal.(i) Whether the respondent is not liable in law for the delay causedin transit of the consignment.(ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in disallowing appellate's claim of damages of Rs. 973/- for the damage caused to the consignment in transit ?(iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in disallowing appellant's claim of damage Rs. 1466.89 being the amount of interest charged by the Bank ?2. The facts relevant for decision of the questions referred to above are that the plaintiff was the consignee of wheat as per Railway Receipt No. 364256 dated 19-6-1978.275 bags of wheat were despatched from Gwalior to Bamania under this railway receipt. The bags reached the destination on 24-9-1978. Thus there was delay of about 95 days. At the destination the da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »