Madhya Pradesh Court February 2003 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.
Umashankar Namdev Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT237
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10-2-94, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panna, in Criminal Case No. 34/1993, convicting the applicant under Section 379 of the IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer six months' R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default one month's further R.I. The order has been confirmed in appeal being preferred by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Panna in Criminal Appeal No. 21/1994, decided on 10-9-1995.2. The facts shorn of unnecessary detail, lie in a narrow compass that N.K. Nahar (P. W. 5), who is the investigating officer, received information that the applicant/accused is selling the stolen diamonds, on the basis of this information, Shri Nahar proceeded the place and found that the accused/applicant, in front of the shop of Daya Chanda Jain, was standing. It is said that the search of the applicant was taken and in the said search he produced...
Dr. Kripa Shankar Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT449; 2003(2)MPLJ563
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order (Annexure P-19), dated 26-3-1999 issued by Janpad Panchayat, Patan, Distt. Jabalpur, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated because his appointment was found to be contrary to rules.2. Before proceeding ahead in this case, it is necessary to state one more fact. Against the order of Janpad Panchayat there is provision of statutory appeal under Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995, and the aforesaid order undisputedly is appealable. In this case, a show-cause notice was issued on 14-5-1999. Thereafter other party appeared and matter was placed before the Court on 3-12-1999. After hearing parties this petition was admitted on that date for final hearing. Thereafter this case is listed today for hearing. As the aforesaid petition was already admitted more than 3 years back, in these circumstances, it is not appropriate to dismiss the petition on the ground of availability ...
Bhandas Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT517; 2003(4)MPLJ460
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition has been directed by the applicant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pawai, District Panna on 27-4-1995 in Criminal Case No. 192/90, convicting the applicant under Sections 452 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC) and sentencing him under Section 452 of the IPC to suffer for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100 and under Section 326 of the IPC for two and half years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of fine in each offence, to suffer ten days and one month rigorous imprisonment. The judgment of conviction has been maintained and the sentence has been modified to the extent that the applicant has been ordered to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 of the IPC in Criminal Appeal No. 34/95, decided 21-12-1995 by the lear...
Santosh Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2003MP218; I(2004)BC461; [2004]122CompCas929(MP); 2003(2)MPLJ246; [2003]44SCL547(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern the disposal of other writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 183, 189, 190, 255, 268, 285, 286, 338, 393, 445, 499, 579, 597, 623, 704, 1367 of 2001 and 223, 401, 474, 475, 514, 1004 and 1507 of 2002, because all these writ petitions involve identical issues of facts and law.2. By filing the writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and proprietary of the Revenue Recovery Certificate (Demand), dated 22-3-2001 for recovery of Rs. 52,22,330 issued at the instance of respondent No. 1-Central Bank of India under Section 3 of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (for short 'M.P. Adhiniyam'), read with rule 5 of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Niyam, 1988 (for short 'M.P. Niyam').3. In view of the short legal controversy sought to be raised by the parties in this writ, it is really not necessary to narrate the facts in detail excep...
Right Services Vs. Chhotu Bhaiya Road Lines and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ406; 2003(3)MPHT561; 2003(2)MPLJ523
A.K. Gohil, J. 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2003 (Chandra Prakash Chordiya v. New Jain Doodh Dahi Bhandar, Indore). 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') against the impugned order dated 20-12-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ratlam, in Criminal Case No. 338/2001, by which the Trail Court has dismissed the private complaint in the absence of the complainant having filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and has also acquitted the respondent/accused. 3. In Criminal Appeal No. 4362 of 2002, the Trial Court has also dismissed the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act vide order dated 28-9-2002 in the absence of the complainant and also acquitted the respondent/accused and thereafter also dismissed the application for restoration, against which the appellant has preferred this appeal after obtaini...
Nekram Sharma and anr. Vs. Asharam Batham and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ920
Uma Nath Singh, J.1. Being aggrieved by an award dated 21.2.2000 passed by learned IX Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claims Case No. 99 of 1999 giving only a sum of Rs. 50,000 for no fault liability plus Rs. 4,500 for funeral expenses and loss to estate, appellants (parents of the deceased) have preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that learned Tribunal has erred in law in not following the mandate of the statute in calculating the compensation as per Schedule.2. Needless to say that even in the case of a person not earning at all, his income is statutorily assessed at Rs. 15,000 per annum. In the instant case, deceased aged 6 years was the only female child and the parents are said to be incapable or begetting any further issue for medical reasons. It is also said that the deceased was a bright student and would have fared well in the future. Thus, looking to the circumstances of the case, it would not be open to contend that the deceased would have been handicapped...
Ramlakhan Vs. Shivraj Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC49
Uma Nath Singh, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal for enhancement of compensation by the appellant aged about 11 years only is directed against an award dated 10th November, 1998 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chachoda, Guna, in a Claims Case No. 106/1997 giving an amount of Rs. 13,000/- out of a total claim of Rs. 1,55,000/-.2. It is said that the claimant suffered fracture of tibia as a result of accident with a tractor bearing No. M.R 08/8284. It is also said that the accident took place on 7th July, 1997 and thereafter, the victim got himself medically examined only on 11th July, 1997 by Dr. S.S. Gupta (P.W. 4) who has deposed that the right leg is shortened by 1 cm. Dr. S.S. Gupta has also stated that he had estimated a medical expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- for further treatment including operation of deformity. That apart, he has also issued a medical certificate being Exhibit P/3 dated 27th August, 1998 reiterating likelihood of incurring Rs. 20,000/- towards the m...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Kishan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC357; 2005ACJ1368
Uma Nath Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by insurance company against the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,09,000 by the learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ashok Nagar, District Guna, in Claims Case No. 17 of 1994, which has exceeded Rs. 86,000, the quantum of compensation claimed before the Tribunal.2. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is confined to a point that the learned Tribunal ought not to have given excess compensation in question when the same did not form a part of the pleadings. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12(SC), but the same decision has also clarified the point in issue in para 21, which reads as under:'For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under Motor Vehicles Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court...
Ravindra Agrawal Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC235; [2005]123CompCas266(MP); [2005]61SCL91(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre,J.1. By filing this writ under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to assail the notice issued under Section 13 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002, dated 30-1-2002 (Annexure P3/P4) issued by Respondent Bank, calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding towards several credit limits/facilities alleged to be extended to petitioner for running their business.2. Heard Shri A.K. Sethi, L/C for the Petitioner.3. In substance the grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that notice under Section 13(2) ibid sent by the Bank (Respondent) is bad on facts. Accordingly to Petitioner they have discharged their outstanding. It is also their case that when Respondent has with them some property available for realisation of the dues, then no notice in question could be served the Petitioner are on in any event it should have been served. It is also the grievance of the Petitioner that...
Mithumal and ors. Vs. Ku. Kavita and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT206; 2003(3)MPLJ560
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Written statement has been filed though belatedly however the Trial Court has refused to take it on record as per impugned order (P-8) dated 2-1-2003. Relying on the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, the Trial Court felt bound by the limitation of 30 days and not beyond 90 days prescribed in Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is quoted below:--1. Written Statement.-- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.2. Order 8 Rule 1 requires the defendant to file the written statement within thirty days...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »