Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Suresh Chandra Tripathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT510
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused against the judgment of his conviction passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur and affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court.2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the accused/applicant at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of L.D.C. in the office of M.P. Electricity Board. It is said that in between the period of 31-7-1980 to 26-12-1980 he did not deposit the amount of the bill which was collected by him from different customers, though, he issued receipts to them. He neither deposited the amount of those bills in the bank which was collected from the customers nor made relevant entry in the relevant collection book. On 12-9-1980, the scandal was first taken note of by the Divisional Manager P.R. Suryavanshi, as a result of which he reported the matter to the concerning police station and thereafter the police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet under ...
Jugraj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT223; 2003(4)MPLJ136
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. The applicant (accused) claiming himself to be juvenile being 17 years of age on 28-6-2002 - the day of the commission of the alleged offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, filed an application under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora vide orders dated 22-5-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 654/2002 rejected the application of the applicant. Hence this revision.2. In support of his claim before the Court below, the applicant had examined his mother Kesharbai (P.W. 1), Headmaster of the Govt. School, Jagdeoprasad (P.W. 2) and his brother Chandrabhah (P.W. 3). The non-applicant did not led any evidence and relied only on the ossification test report done in pursuance of the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sihora.3. The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record has held that the applicant was not a 'juvenile' as per Section...
Shehzad Khan Vs. Shri Oswal Samaj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT273
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. Two Courts have dismissed plaintiff's suit giving rise to filing of this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC by the plaintiff contending that the appeal involves substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid. The impugned judgment and decree is dated 13-5-2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shujalpur in C.A. No. 15-A of 2001, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 2-A of 2000, decided by Civil Judge, Class I, Shujalpur, District Shajapur, on 16-10-2001. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 100 ibid 1 2. Heard Shri A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the appeal. In other words, the appeal docs not involve any substantial question of law as is req...
Sukhdev Vs. Rajendra and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT215
1. Two Courts have dismissed plaintiffs suit for declaration of his title over the suit land giving rise to filing of second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment/decree, dated 29-2-2000, passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Ujjain in C.A. No. 35-A of 1997, decided by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 195-A of 1995, on 21-4-1997. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid ?2. Heard Shri R.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am of the view that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine.4. The dispute is between the two brothers in relation to land in suit. It is not in dispute that in Revenu...
Ashok and ors. Vs. Shakuntala Bai and
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT417
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in this appeal. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC and hence, the appeal has no substance. The appeal is filed by the defendant under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment/decree, dated 6-3-2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barwah, West Nimar, in C.A. No. 17-A of 1999, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 72-A of 1987, decided by Civil Judge, Class I, Barwah, on 23-8-1999.2. Two Courts have held against the appellant (defendant) who is admittedly the tenant of the suit accommodation that the need set up by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) for residence of her son - Umesh as also for doing business is genuine and bona fide and secondly, plaintiff does not have any other reasonable and alternative suitable accommodation of her own in city where she can accomplish...
Guddibai and ors. Vs. Mishrilal Ahirwar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ253
S.S. Jha and Chandresh Bhushan, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by claimants for grant of compensation. Claimants are widow and children of deceased Prakash alias Pappu. Prakash alias Pappu Ahirwar was the driver of tractor No. MP 08-675. On 18.2.1995, deceased Prakash was driving the said tractor which overturned resulting in his death. Considering the pleadings of appellants, evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that appellants are not entitled for any compensation on account of negligence of the driver. The Claims Tribunal held that for the negligence of the driver his heirs cannot claim compensation.2. Counsel for appellants submitted that he has moved an application for converting the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and submitted that his application for compensation, be read under Section 163A of the Act in place of Sections 166 and 140 of the Act.3. The counsel for appellants admitted that in...
Sunderlal Vs. Daliram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT403
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-3-2000, passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Waraseoni in Execution Case No. 5-A/81, DHR/applicant has preferred this revision under Section 115, CPC.2.HR/applicant (plaintiff) contacted Sakharam, husband of non-applicant Nos. 2, 3 brother-in-law of non-applicant No. 4 for advance of loan of Rs. 8,000/-, Sakharam had agreed to advance the loan it' the applicant execute two sale deeds of the suit property in favour of the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4. Accordingly, applicant executed two sale deeds in favour of non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4 for consideration of loan advanced to him. As agreed, Sukharam in his term has executed agreement to resale on repayment of loan amount Rs. 8,000/-. When applicant tendered the amount, Sukharam and non-applicants refused to execute the reconveyance deed. Therefore, applicant instituted C.S. No. 5-A/81 to enforce the agreement of reconveyance. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge vide judgment-decree d...
Gopal Singh Vs. Anwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC548
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for appellant and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the appeal which seeks to challenge the award, dated 23.1.2003, passed by learned IVth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 140 of 2002, by the claimant.2. It is an injury case. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- together with 9% per annum interest from the date of application till realisation. Claimant says that it is inadequate, and hence, wants more. In my view, what is awarded, is legal, proper and reasonable. It is good and commensurate with the nature of injury suffered by the claimant.3. What is material and decisive in Accident cases is not the causing of an injury only, but its resultant disability in the body. If it is found that injury though caused due to Accident did not result in any kind of permanent or partial disablement, then in such eventuality there arises no question of granting any compensation except what i...
Rakesh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT319
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 2-7-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara in Criminal Appeal (unregistered) 2003, whereby the sentence of conviction passed by the Trial Court has been suspended with condition that the applicants shall be released on bail on their deposit of the fine amount in the Trial Court. 2. The applicants have been convicted by the Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Gadarwara in Criminal Case No, 176/96 vide judgment dated28-6-2003 for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Codeand sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/-on each count. In appeal, the Appellate Court suspended the jail sentence withcondition to deposit the fine amount. 3. Shri H.S. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Appellate Court having admitted the appeal and having ordered for suspension of jail sentence ought to have stayed the fine amount also. He further...
Ram Singh Vs. Raj Mal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC697; 2004ACJ743
N.K. Jain and S.L. Kochar, JJ. 1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claimant-appellant seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, vide award dated 25.4.2000 in Claim Case No. 73 of 1998. Appellant Ram Singh is a carpenter by profession. He was aged 25 years on the date of accident (21.1.1998) when he lost his one leg as a result of the said accident which took place with a motor vehicle owned by respondent No. 4, driven by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.2. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 74,000 which also includes the treatment and other expenses. In the case of Zumar Lal v. Nand Kishore, 2001 ACJ 2007 (SC), arising from a decision of this court, the Supreme Court in case of amputation of leg of a person aged 62 years, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. However, in the present case, the appellant is aged 25 ye...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »