Madhya Pradesh Court October 2002 Judgments
Bhagwandeen Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT258
ORDER1. Petitioner in the instant writ petition claims the relief of quashment of order (P-12) passed by the State Government rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of Samman Nidhi admissible to a freedom fighter under the rules framed by the State Government.2. Petitioner claims that he was employed in the year 1942 in the military police and he meted out sympathetic treatment to the freedom fighters in March, 1942 in the course of Quit India Movement (Bharat Chhodo Aandolan). He was kept in house arrest for about ten days in March, 1942 during Quit India Movement, thus, he is eligible for release of Pension/Samman Nidhi. The State Government as per order (P-12) has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the fact of meting out the sympathetic treatment and consequent Court-martial and imprisonment for about ten days is not established. The verification was sought from Home Department of Uttar Pradesh; it was notified by the Colonel V.K. Malhotra, Depu...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Vs. Smt. Sumitra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC731
A.K. Gohil, J.1. This appeal tinder Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.1992 passed by III Additional District Judge, Ujjain rejecting his petition/suit for grant of divorce.2. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties took place on 19.4.1974 and from July, 1976, the respondent-wife is residing separately. The petition for divorce was filed on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery. The respondent-wife was ex parte before the Court below as the notice was refused by her. Even then the Trial Court has dismissed husband's petition as he failed to prove the allegations levelled against the respondent-wife. This Court also tried for reconciliation but it failed and the Court has recorded that there is no possibility of any reconciliation between the parties.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when there was no possibility for reconciliation between the parties, the Court below ought to have ...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Jalim Gadariya and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT388; 2003(4)MPLJ92
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh against the order by which its appeal has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Plaintiff Jalim instituted Civil Suit No. 22-A of 1993 in the Court of III Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhatarpur for declaration of title to certain lands which were recorded in the revenue records as belonging to the State. The suit was filed against two defendants Maha Prasad and the State of Madhya Pradesh. It proceeded ex parte. The case of the State is that the summons was not served upon it. Defendant No. 1 Maha Prasad did not contest the claim of the plaintiff rather admitted it. The ex parte decree was passed on 30-6-1993.The appeal against that decree was filed by the State on 7-2-1994. The SDO filed an affidavit in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that the summons were not served and he had no knowledge of the suit or the decree. He came to know about the decree when the Patwari...
Tag this Judgment!Surendrasingh Tomar Vs. Shankar Joshi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC395; 2003(1)MPHT308; 2003(1)MPLJ217
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision petition, has been filed by the applicant against judgment dated 5-9-2002 passed by II ASJ, Ujjain, in Criminal Appeal No. 79/2002, arising out of order dated 9-5-2002 passed in Case No. 1869/2002, by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain, thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act') and sentencing him 3 months' RI with fine of Rs. 3000/- and compensation Rs. 20000/-.2. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court was that complainant/non-applicant No. 1 has filed criminal complaint against applicant on the ground that as the relations were cordial between the parties and as the applicant was in need of funds, on the assurance of return the same, complainant/non-applicant Shankar Joshi gave him total Rs. 32,478.40. On reminder, applicant issued 2 cheques dated 23-10-91 bearing No. 278528 and 278533 drawn on State Bank of India, Sarafa Branch, Ujjain amounting...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gyarsibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC16; 2004ACJ386
A.K. Gohil, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid miscellaneous appeals, which have been filed against the separate, but common award.2. The insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against interim award dated 12.9.1997 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh in Claim Case Nos. 10, 11, 12, 9 and 8 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000, in each case, under no fault liability against the insurance company with interest.3. The brief and common facts for the disposal of all these appeals are that on 26.5.1996 respondent/owner of the tractor-trolley and respondent/driver of the tractor were using tractor for running compressor machine on the well of Bhagirath and it has been stated in the petition as well as in the F.I.R. that they were running a compressor with the use of tractor for operating boring machine in the well of Bhagirath. In the trolley some explosive material...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT520; 2003(3)MPLJ20
Ajit Singh, J.1. Appellant, Bhagwan Das, the sole accused person in this case, has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment by the impugned judgment dated 24-8-99 passed in Special Case No. 106/99 by the Second Additional Special Judge, Balaghat. He has also been convicted under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. He has been found guilty for committing an offence of rape with the prosecutrix, Mamta Bai (P.W. 1), on 24-8-99 at about 12 o'clock in her house.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :--The prosecutrix, Mamta Bai (P.W. 1), is second wife of Johan Singh. From the first wife, Johan Singh has three issues and none from the prosecutrix. Since the prosecutrix was not keeping well for some days and her husband had left the house to work as Mason, she thought of seeing Dr. Kat...
Tag this Judgment!Chakresh Kumar Modi and anr. Vs. Smt. Kamla Khare and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT109; 2003(2)MPLJ331
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 against the order by which it has been held that the suit is not barred by Order 22 Rule 9, CPC.2. B.P. Khare was owner of the house Nos. 175 and 176, Tularam Chowk, Jabalpur. He died in 1970 leaving behind six sons and a widow. Plaintiff Kamla Khare is widow of one of the sons. According to her, there has been no partition of the house and it continues to be the joint family property. Three co-sharers sold a portion of the house to three persons by registered sale deeds dated 8-4-1987. The plaintiff filed three civil suits challenging the alienations. One of the defendants Ram Narain Khare who was also a co-sharer died during the pendency of those suits but his legal representatives were not brought on record and therefore the suits were held to have abated by order dated 4-1-1996. Thereafter, the heirs of another co-sharer sold a portion of the house to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by registered sale-deed dated 18-8...
Tag this Judgment!Bhan Singh Lodhi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT170
Ajit Singh, J. 1. Appellant, Bhan Singh Lodhi, the sole accused person in this case, has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by the impugned judgment dated 22-9-2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 110/2000 by the Sessions Judge, Damoh. He has also been convicted under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Boththe sentences are to run concurrently. He has been found guilty for committing an offence of rape with the prosecutrix, Malti Bai (P.W. 4), on 3-5-2000 at about 12 O'clock in the night in her house.2. The appellant is admittedly a disabled person since time immemorial. He is having paralysis on both the limbs and cannot stand/walk without support. He can only crawl in a sitting posture by means of his hands. In compliance of my order dated 8-10-2002, a medical r...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT530
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th February, 1996 in Civil Suit No. 62-A/1991 by 9th Additional District Judge, Bhopal decreeing the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Canara Bank as against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 / respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein. The appellants were defendant Nos. 7 to 9 before the Trial Court.2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,27,982.03 paise against respondent Nos. 2 to 7. The claim of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 was based on the averments that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 had obtained a loan from them as detailed in the plaint which need not be specified here, as the averments in that regard are not material for the disposal of this appeal. It is also admitted position of the case that defendant Nos. 1 to 6/respondent Nos. 2 to 7 mortgaged and hypothecated their properties with the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 towards security of the said loan. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 averred...
Tag this Judgment!Devisingh Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC458
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award dated 13.3.1989, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case No. 3/1987, whereby it dismissed the claim petition.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.8.1985, one she-buffalo belonging to the petitioner was sitting on side of the road, when a Mini Bus No. MPD/3606, belonging to respondent No. 1, being driven by respondent No. 2, and insured with respondent No. 3, Insurance Company came and hit the she-buffalo, as a result of the said accident she-buffalo received fracture in her both legs and after 15 days she-buffalo died. On the same day the matter was reported to police, Shajapur where a case was registered against respondent No. 2 driver under Sections 279 and 429, I.P.C. Thereafter, the owner of she-buffalo filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,000/-. In the claim petition notices were issued. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »