Madhya Pradesh Court August 2003 Judgments
Mohammed Hanif Vs. Ram Gopal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: I(2005)ACC663
Deepak Verma, J.1. This appeal for enhancement is directed against award dated 11th September, 2001 passed by the 3rd M.A.C.T. Alirajpur, Distt. Jhabua in Claim Case No. 224/98.2. For personal injuries sustained in a road accident, appellant filed a claim petition claiming Rs. 6,50,000/- (Six lakhs fifty thousand) as compensation from respondents.3. Necessary facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 15th June, 1998 appellant was driving bus bearing Registration No. MP-11-8935. On fateful day appellant was plying bus between Alirajpur and Bhabra. No sooner bus crossed Badichoki and reached Chichlana Puliya truck being driven by respondent 1 rashly and negligently came from opposite direction and dashed against bus. As result appellant sustained multiple injuries including fractures in both legs. At the time of accident truck belonged to respondent 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3. Respondent 4 is the owner of bus which was being driven by respondent 1.4. On the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta and ors. Vs. Hiralal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ1491
Deepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ1. This appeal for enhancement is directed against the award dated 22.7.2001 passed by the M.A.C.T., Ratlam in Claim Case No. 10 of 1999.2. For death of Vijaykant Dube, Asstt. Professor in Government College, in a road accident, the appellants filed claim petition claiming compensation from respondents.3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 12.10.1998, deceased was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. MP 14-H 0830. While he was going from Jaora to Mandsaur near Mandsaur Circuit House, a truck bearing No. MP 13-E 0947 came from opposite direction and dashed against bus, thus accident was caused by respondent No. 1 on account of his rash and negligent driving of truck. At the time of accident truck was belonging to respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3.4. On the basis of evidence Tribunal found that respondent No. 1 Hiralal was solely responsible for causing the accident on account of his rash and negligent drivin...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nanhelal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT217; 2004(1)MPLJ380
Rajeev Gupta, Ag. C.J. 1. Appellant State has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21-4-1990, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T. No. 92/89, whereby respondents accused persons Nanhelal, Mukundi, Bhaiyalal and Premlal were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34, IPC.2. Police Gaisabad, District Damoh, after completing the investigation of the case registered at Crime No. 34/89, on the report of first informant Shyamlal charge-sheeted respondents accused persons Nanhelal, Mukundi, Bhaiyalal and Premlal for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The accused persons were alleged to have committed murder of one Dulli @ Tularam by causing injuries on him by means of stones, during the period between 4-4-89 to 6-4-89.3. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the Trial Court for the alleged commission of the offences pu...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT215
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. The applicant has filed this revision against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai in Criminal Appeal No. 109/95, dated 10-9-96 arising out of the judgment dated 2-9-95 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai in Criminal Case No. 258/94 whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-.2. The prosecution case in brief is that :--On 5-10-97 acomplaint was lodged by Komalchand (P.W. 1) that since last five days his bull is missing. On the basis of this complaint investigation was done by the Police Station, Khurai and offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered and the charge-sheet was filed against the applicant. The prosecution in order to establish the charges adduced as many as 12 witnesses. The accused abjured his guilt and took the defence that he has been fa...
Tag this Judgment!Shobhnath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT506; 2003(4)MPLJ224
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 9-8-96 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Criminal Appeal No. 44/93 whereby he dismissed the appeal. The Trial Court convicted the applicant for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the Sessions Court maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The applicant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with co-accused persons Radhe Shyam, Babulal and Shyamlal.2. The prosecution case was that the accused persons were partners of the firm M/s. Puranlal Purushottam Gupta, Satna. The partners of the said firm purchased wheat from complainant Mourdhvaj (P.W. 1) and issued cheques dated 9-3-72 and 10-3-72 for Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 7,190/- respectively towards payment of its cost, knowing ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand and ors. Vs. Shri Varni Digambar JaIn Gurukul Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT99; 2004(1)MPLJ521
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the order dated 14-7-2003 passed by IX ADJ, Jabalpur in Execution Case No. 1/2001, whereby objection under Section 47, CPC was dismissed.2. With reference to agreement (Annexure A-1) the Arbitrators were appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrators made a faisala (Annexure A-2). This faisala was put to execution by the non-applicant vide Annexure A-3. During the pendency of this execution before the Court below on 22-8-2001, parties again referred the matter to the Panchayat Sabha vide agreement (Annexure A-7). This agreement was signed by the office bearers of the non-applicant Samiti. Arbitrators Ratanlal, Mool-chand Luhadia and Ashok Kumar Patni commenced arbitral proceedings immediately. However, on 23-8-2001, a resolution was passed by the non-applicant Samiti that it sticks to the earlier faisala (Annexure A-2) and further in arbitral proceedings are not required. On the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!Mannulal Vs. Chhagan Lal Chauhan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ438
Deepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ. 1. Mr. R.N. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurance company, are heard on LA. No. 2767 of 2003. This is an application for early hearing of the appeal on the ground that the appellant is an old man of 75 years and is not keeping good health. It is submitted that the only point involved in the appeal is with regard to the liability of the insurance company.2. After hearing learned counsel for parties and on due consideration the application is allowed. With consent arguments heard.3. This appeal is directed against the award dated 20.4.2001 passed by the 13th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 83 of 1999. By the impugned award the Tribunal found that the appellant sustained permanent disability on account of road accident which took place on 23.3.1999. The Claims Tribunal also found and held that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Tarik Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT236
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Heard finally with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15-7-2003, passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Jabalpur by which while allowing the application of the applicant filed under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a condition has been imposed that the Motor Cycle shall be released on 'Supurdnama' on applicants furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/~ (Rupees Fifty thousand). The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that this condition of furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- is onerous, and also submitted that the applicant has purchased the motor cycle after taking loan and he is not in a position to furnish the bank guarantee as ordered by the Trial Court.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order.3. The prosecution case is that on 7-7-2003, Bhura alias Saffique was going on Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle No. MP-20-KJ 3765, and he was found carrying 6.5...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chandra JaIn Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT380
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 27-2-97 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur, whereby the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') has been allowed.2. No exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition. Suffice it to say, that the charge-sheet under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, was filed in the Committal Court wherein an application under Section 319 of the Code was moved by the prosecution on 3-2-97 to array the applicant Subhash Chandra Jain as an accused. This application was allowed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision.3. In this revision petition, Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued and submitted that the case under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act is triable by the Court of Sessions and hence the Committal Court was not...
Tag this Judgment!Siddh Industries and 3 ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC402; 2004(1)MPLJ147
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged demand notice dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure 'P/5') issued by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act of 2002') and thereafter followed by notices for taking possession of the assets dated 3.3.2003, 10.3.2003, and 21.4.2003 (Annexures 'P/7', 'P/8' and 'P.9').2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 is a proprietorship Firm who was granted total financial assistance of Rs. 143.00 lacs by respondent Bank on 10.4.2000 under the heads of C.C. (HYP) 100.00 lacs; Term Loan for Machinery 25.50 lacs; and Term Loan for Building 17.50 lacs. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are guarantors to the said loan. Petitioners have deposited title-deeds of properties situated at Flat No. 104, Chandramani Apartment, Janki Nagar, Indore; Open Plot Survey Nos. 3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »