Madhya Pradesh Court May 2002 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.
Hetram and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4528; 2002(4)MPHT75
Ajit Singh, J. 1. Appellants Hetram, Hemraj and Narvad, the accused persons in this case, have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and one month simple imprisonment respectively (both sentences to run concurrently) by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, vide judgment dated 21-12-89 in Sessions Trial No. 261/87 for causing the death of Dayaram, aged 35 years, the deceased in the case. The appellants have been found guilty of wrongfully restraining and causing injuries on the deceased with the blunt side of axe between 12.00 and 13.00 hrs. on 27-10-87 at his field commonly known as 'Tallaiya Khet' situated at Village Paudi, District Chhatarpur. The fourth accused namely; Mst. Bharat Rani, wife of appellant Hetram, has, however, been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge from the said charges on the ground of no evidence against her.Briefly stated the facts giving rise t...
Rameshwar and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT33
R.B. Dixit, J. 1. Judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1986, Udayveer @ Lotan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, as both appeals arise out of common judgment dated 31st January, 1986, delivered by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 1985, thereby convicting the appellants Rameshwar as well as Udayveer under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. 2. Facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for disposal of these appeals are in narrow compass. On 27-2-85 at about 5.00 p.m. when deceased Govardhan was at his field he asked Udayveer as to why he indulge in abusing him, whereupon Rameshwar brought a Farsa from his house and abusingly assaulted the deceased twice on head and neck followed by Udayveer who also assaulted the deceased by lathi, as a result thereof deceased fell d...
Narvada and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT335
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. This criminal revision impugns the judgment and order dated 24-10-96 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 8/95, whereby the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rewa in Criminal Case No. 71/91, dated 15-2-95 has been affirmed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Rudreshwar Prasad was waylaid on 10-9-90 by the accused/applicants and was inflicted injuries with blunt objects. The Trial Court on a proper appreciation of evidence led by both the sides relied on the evidence of S.K. Pathak (P.W. 3) and Dr. D.S. Kapoor (P.W. 6) and held the accused/applicants guilty of offences under Sections 147, 325 and 149 of IPC and sentenced them to the period of six months' R.I. under Section 147, IPC and one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 325/149, IPC. In appeal the learned First Additional Sessions Judge did not find any infirmity with the findings of th...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Chhajjoomal and Sons and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT354
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. We are deciding these Misc. Appeals which have been preferred by both the parties under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1985 passed by Additional District Judge, Mhow in Civil Suit No. 5/1983. Both the parties have challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree by separate appeals before us.2. Succinctly narrated, the facts of the case are that the respondent of Misc. Appeal No. 161 of 1985 was a Military Contractor. In the years 1941 to 1946 the said contractor took military contracts for construction of buildings and supply of furniture to the military services at Bairagarh, Ajmer, Nasirabad and Mhow. The Contract No. C-444, dated 28-6-1944 was entered into between contractor and Lt. Col. E.L. Farley R.E.C.R.E., Mhow at Mhow. There was some dispute in respect of the aforesaid Contract No. C-444 between the parties and the matterwent up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On 20-11-1978 parties enter...
Mukeshchandra Vs. Naushad Ahmed
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT89
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the defendant against the order by which his prayer under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected.2. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand) and interest. The defendant filed his written statement on 17-1-2000 and raised an objection that the dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement between the parties and, therefore, the Court should refer the parties to arbitration. By the impugned order the Trial Court has refused to do so on the ground that this objection was not raised earlier and, therefore, the defendant has agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court for the decision of this dispute. The Trial Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in Laxminarayan v. Food Corporation of India (1992 JLJ 415).3. The point for determination in this revision is whether the view taken by the Trial Court i...
Prabhat Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT560; 2002(4)MPLJ329
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. We are compelled to preface this judgment by stating in a most categorical and unequivocal manner that the effort of the petitioner to get his age of superannuation extended is indefatigable at times creating a sense of puzzlement and at times transgressing all limits of rationality and logicality. The persuasive proclivity is unmatched but unfortunately unwarranted. Hopes harboured by the petitioner would unfold layer by layer when the facts would be uncurtained and we will be required to deal with the same.2. The petitioner was working as H.S.-I in the Machine Shop of the Gun Carriage Factory. It is his case that at the time of his entry into service in the historic year of 1962 his date of birth was mentioned as 7-8-1940 on the basis of the educational certificate as he had passed Class VII. He appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1966 but fortune did not favour him and he remained unsuccessful to cross the bridge. However, the certificate gra...
State of M.P. Vs. Prempuri Goswami and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT169; 2002(4)MPLJ237
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. This petition under sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed seeking cancellation of order of bail, passed by Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, on 31-10-2001, wherein, each of the applicants is ordered to be released in connection with Crime No. 261/2001 of Police Station, Lordganj, Dist. Jabalpur, which pertains to offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376/34 of the IPC.2. According to the petitioner, on 9th of May, 2001, Dev Singh Thakur lodged a Gum Insan report at Police Station, Lordganj, alleging that his minor daughter Ku. Vandana Thakur is not traceable. On enquiry, it was stated by the witnesses that Ku. Vandana has been taken away by the respondents, under the pretext of marrying her. It was also stated by the witnesses that Dev Singh Thakur purchased a house in Lordganj area and after release from jail, respondent No. 1 started threatening him. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, who had a criminal backg...
State of M.P. Vs. Dr. Devendrasingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4368
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. The State of M. P. has questioned the legality of the order passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore dated 16-5-94 in Special Sessions case No. 2/93 while quashing the part of investigation conducted by Inspector Shri Bodh, Shri Bhandari and Sub-Inspector Shri Sengar and giving liberty to the prosecution for reinvestigation by authorised police officer in accordance with law, under the provisions of Section 5-A(1) Proviso (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), discharged the accused.2. The State of Madhya Pradesh through Economic Offences Investigation Bureau, Indore filed a charge-sheet against the Non-applicant Dr. Devendra Singh for the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. After filing of the charge-sheet, the non-applicant had submitted an application pointing out illegality in investigation without following mandatory provisions of Section 5-A(1...
Gopal Singh Vs. Krishnabai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC611
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The applicant-husband has questioned the order dated 12.2.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujalpur in Crl. Revision No. 174/99 arising out of the order passed in M. Cr. C. No. 21/98 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur on 20.8.1999 reversing the order of the Trial Court regarding refusal of maintenance to the wife/non-applicant No. 1 and son/non-applicant No. 2, by filing this revision petition.2. The non-applicants had filed an application for grant of maintenance on the ground that the non-applicant No. 1 is the legally married wife of the applicant and after marriage out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 1 Ravikumar born. The applicant was illtreating her for demand of dowry. When the non-applicant was pregnant, as per customs she was taken for her delivery by her father from her matrimonial house. The non-applicant Ravi Kumar born at the house of her father. After the birth of non-applicant No. 2, the applicant-father did not take any care of the ...
Ramjilal Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT243; 2002(4)MPLJ65
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner by this petition has called in question the propriety and validity of order dated 30-12-98, Annexure P-1 issued by respondent No. 2 by which the tenders said to have beena ccepted were cancelled.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baroda, Distt. Sheopurkalan had invited certain tenders for construction items. The tenders were published in daily newspaper 'Dainik Nav Prabhat' and 'Dainik Chambal Wani'. The petitioner submitted his tender as he was a registered A-2 Class contractor. It is the case of the petitioner that as the rates quoted by him were the lowest, his tender was passed and a resolution No. 12 was passed on 29-10-98, accepting his tender. It is submitted by him that by the impugned order the tender has been cancelled only on that ground that the notice inviting tender was not given vide circulation in any State level newspaper.3. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no such rule of publis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »