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.
Shri Sayeed Alias Aslam Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT312
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner (detenu) has challenged his detention order under the provisions of National Security Act, passed by the District Magistrate, Ujjain on 9-9-2002 (Annexure A) and also confirmed by the State Government. The grounds supplied to the detenu are Annexure B.2. We have heard Shri A.S. Garg, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri G.S. Yadav for the petitioner and Shri G. Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent perused the entire record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the grounds of detention are clearly indicative of the fact that the detaining authority has not effectively applied its mind while passing the detention order. According to ground No. 3, the incident of the year 1996 for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 506, IPC has been considered whereas this case was already decided on 30-11-98. Again, in ground No. 4, the offence was registered by the police in the year 1998 under S...
Prabhu Dayal and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2990; 2004(1)MPHT30; 2004(2)MPLJ81
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. By this revision the applicants are assailing the order dated 16-6-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 147/2003 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, whereby charges under Sections 307, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against them.2. According to the prosecution case on 23-1-2003 at about 11.00 A.M. while Ajendrasingh and Awadhesh were returning in their tractor, the applicants objected Awadhesh from taking his tractor from the 'med' of their field. This led to a quarrel between them during which applicant No. 1 Prabhu with intention to cause the death of Awadhesh, gave three axe blows to him and applicant No. 2 Dharamchand caused an injury from the blunt side of axe to Ajendra. When Ajendra managed to snatch the axe from Dharamchand he assaulted him with a lathi. Awadhesh received two incised wounds, one near his right eye and other on his left check which have been reported to be grievous.3. After going through the challan papers particu...
Govind Singh Vs. Satish Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT10
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 19-8-2002, passed by learned 1st Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 186 of 1999 by the claimant.2. It is an injury case. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of award 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 arise no question of granting any compensation except what...
Mohd. Ishaque Vs. Shiv Kumar Choubey and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT503
ORDERS.K. Pande, J. 1. These revisions are directed against the order dated 28-7-2001, passed by Ist Addl. MACT, Sagar in Claim Case No. 12/2000 and 71/99.2. Shiv Kumar Choubey and Navncct Saraf, non-applicants are the respective claimants of the aforesaid Claim Case Nos. 12/2000 and 71/99. Vide impugned award dated 18-7-2001, the applicant owner of the vehicle has been ordered to pay Rs. 7,653/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively to non-applicants Shiv Kumar Choubey and Navncet Saraf. Applicant/owner of the vehicle has submitted that the vehicle was driven by a duly licensed and qualified driver and vide impugned order dated 18-7-2001, passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company non-applicant No. 3 ought not to have been relieved of its liability from liquidating the claim, as against the applicant/owner of the vehicle, non-applicant No. 3, the Insurance Company has submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid licence. The licence possessed by him was fake as such, as ...
Sai Developers Vs. Sanjay Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT501; 2004(3)MPLJ57
ORDERS.K. Pande, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 26-3-2003, passed by ADJ, Burhanpur in M.CA. No. 3/2002.2. Non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 instituted C.S. No. 40-A/2002 in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Burhanpur for injunction seeking relief of restoration of the electricity supply and other incidental relief. Defendant applicant filed application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC stating inter alia that the matter relates to restoration of electricity supply, therefore, the application under Section 38 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for convenience) before the RCA alone could be filed and the jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 45 of the Act is barred. Plaintiffs/non-applicants resisted the application. It has been stated that there is no dispute between the tenant-plaintiffs/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 and landlord-defen-dant/non-applicant Nos. 9 and 10 Hafiz Shakir Husain and Hafij Jakir Husa...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Intex Containers (Pvt.) Ltd. and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT498
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 14-5-99, passed by ADJ, Murwara in T. Execution Case No. 1/97.2. Plaintiff/applicant instituted C.S. No. 136/91 in the Court of ADJ, Kishangarhbas (Rajasthan) against non-applicant. The suit was decreed, a preliminary decree dated 11-8-94 was drawn. Subsequently, a final decree dated 19-9-94 was passed by the Court. The decree had been transferred for execution against non-applicant No. 4 Anand Goyanka, resident of Murwara as the property mortgaged by him is situated at Katni. Non-applicant Anand Goyanka resisted the execution by filing application under Sections 47 and 151, CPC. It has been contended that C.S. No. 136/91 in the Court of ADJ, Kishangarhbas was proceeded ex parts against the non-applicant. Summons/ notice of proceedings in the said suit were not served on him. The Court below vide order dated 14-5-99 allowed the objection and held that decree being nullity could not be enfor...
H.R. Agrawal Vs. K.B. Upadhyay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT26; 2004(3)MPLJ151
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 4-12-99, passed by RCA, Bhopal in M.J.C. No. 5/99.2. Applicant/landlord, H.R. Agrawal filed application under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for convenience) before the RCA, Bhopal. It was registered as Case No. 44/RCA, Bhopal/99. Tenant/non-applicant K.B. Upadhyay resisted the application stating inter alia that the suit premises since had been let out after the retirement of the landlord/applicant from the Government service, application under Section 23-A of the Act is not maintainable. Accepting the contention, the RCA vide order dated 20-8-99 rejected the application on the sole ground that the landlord/applicant retired in the year 1986 and the suit premise has been let out to the tenant/non-applicant in the year 1991. After some time, tenant/non-applicant filed application under Section 23-I of the Act seeking an order to sadd...
Shri Faloudi Pulse Mills Vs. M.P. Financial Corpn.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: [2004]52SCL18(MP)
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The petitioner by this Writ Petition has prayed this Court to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for granting the following relief :(a) That, the respondent be kindly directed writ of mandamus not to alienate the Industry alongwith Plant & Machinery by private negotiation and without holding public auction and that too after notice to the petitioner.2. An alternative relief has also been sought by the petitioner which reads thus :--'If the respondent has taken over the Industry by passing any order, the same be kindly ordered to be quashed by a writ of certiorari or suitable orders may kindly be passed for quashing the order of taking over. However, the alternative relief has not been pressed during the course of argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence, the entitlement of main relief is being considered.'3. The case of petitioner as put forth by him in his petition is that ...
Ramprasad Chourasia Vs. Premchand Chourasia and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2005MP50
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. Heard.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-9-2000, passed by II ADJ, Satna in execution case No. 1/93.3. In F.A. No. 105/66 Premchand v. Smt. Saraswatibai a compromise decree (Annexure A-2) was passed by this Court. As per this decree, Late Saraswatibai was made entitled to remain in possession of the three houses subject to the following conditions :--'(a) Smt. Saraswatibai shall not alienate the suit properties to the extent of half, but she will be at liberty to alienate the other half. It will be her choice which half she would alienate and which she would preserve.(b) On her death, half of the properties so preserved shall go to Premchand and Champalal: or their heirs.(c) In order to avoid further litigation between the appellants inter se, it is agreed that Premchand's share is 2/3rds, while Champalal's 1/3rd. Durgaprasad shall claim no share.'4. Smt. Saraswatibai died on 18-8-1982. Champalal also died on 31-3-1985. Applicant Ramprasad Cho...
Maruti Traders and anr. Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT546
ORDERA.K. Gohil, Adv.1. Petitioners, who are defendants in Original Civil Suit No. 11-B/2002, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24-12-2002, by which the Trial Court while granting application of the petitioners for leave to defend in a summary suit filed under Order 37, CPC, has imposed the condition of furnishing security and personal bond.2. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,20,000/- against the petitioner and the suit is based on a cheque for the aforesaid sum issued by the petitioners which was subsequently dishonoured. Therefore, admittedly the suit is based on dishonoured cheque. It is also not in dispute before me that in the defence the petitioners have not disputed their signatures on the cheque but in the defence their submission is that they have issued a blank cheque in favour of the respondent/plaintiff long back in the year 1998 and thereafter they have closed their...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »