Madhya Pradesh Court January 2004 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.
Ganesh Natrajan Vs. Kalpana Malhotra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC89
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure P-4 passed by Family Court, Bhopal, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 366A of 2002 between the petitioner and the respondent by which the Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent Ms. Kalpana Malhotra filed a suit under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for annulling the marriage. This suit was filed in April, 2002. Before filing the aforesaid suit, respondent also filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and five others under Sections 467, 468, 471, 496, 506 and Section 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the petitioner is that in paras 9 and 11 the respondent has made following allegations against the petitioner:'9. That the complainant had no other go but bring it to the notice of his parents, who on inqu...
Devilal and anr. Vs. Sidhanath Through L.Rs. Ramakant and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC522; 2004ACJ1515
Agrawal, J.1. On 2.11.1995 deceased Vishal, Mushtak, A-2 and Mehmood, A-3, were travelling from Sendwa to Indore by truck No. MP 09-D 6954. Due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Ravindra, R-3, the truck driver, the truck overturned resulting in death of Vishal and injuries to both Mushtak, A-2 and his brother Mehmood, A-3. Claim Case No. 5 of 1996 was filed by parents of deceased Vishal. Mushtak, A-2, filed Claim Case No. 35 of 1996 while Mehmood, A-3, filed Claim Case No. 80 of 1996. The Tribunal held the truck driver guilty of negligence and rashness. It held the truck owner liable to pay compensation. However, insurance company, R-2, was exonerated. Award of Rs. 62,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the parents of deceased Vishal, award of Rs. 25,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in favour of Mushtak, A-2 and an award of Rs. 1,500 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in favour of Mehmood, A-3, were passed. All the...
Hanuman P. Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT387
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The present litigation at one hand exposits the prolixity of prayers which is not ordinarily acceptable and appreciable but, a pregnant one, the same reflects the total unconcern of the authorities in dealing with the matters in appeal pertaining to disciplinary proceeding and the lackadaisical propensity in passing the orders with regard to retiral dues.2. The learned Government Advocate for the State has vehemently criticised the number of prayers putforth but, the aforesaid criticism has to be driven to take the back seat when the factual scenario as projected is tested on the anvil of the prismatic premises founded on acceptable sound and clear rationale. The facts which have given rise to this litigation travel a long way to chronicle a sad story how an employee is treated by his higher officials who sit over the files to decide the appeal after 14 years. In the days of Yore a 'Yuga' was considered a considerable length of time and any kind of banishment by ...
Sandhya Vs. Vijaysingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC768
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 3.4.1997 in Civil Suit No. 16-A/94 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ujjain, whereby the decree of conjugal rights was passed.2. Admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 18.2.1980 according to the Hindu rights and customs at Ratlam and after the marriage the appellant lived few days in the matrimonial house and now she is living separately with her parents.3. The case of the petitioner is that the defendant was in habit of leaving the matrimonial house without the knowledge and the permission of the petitioner and her behaviour with the petitioner and his family members is not desired and cordial. That the defendant has left the matrimonial house with jewellery and cash and on 24.1.1994 when the petitioner went to the house of the parents of the defendant at R...
Rukvendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1489; 2004(2)MPHT71; 2004(4)MPLJ249
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. This is criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.PC against the order dated 8-2-2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gwalior in Cr. Case No. 1/2002.2. On 2-1-2002, respondent No. 1 State filed a charge-sheet in Crime No. 108/2001, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307/34, 451, 204 and 325 of IPC and Sections 25 and 26 of Arms Act against seven accused persons before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gwalior. Complainant filed an application under Section 190 of Cr.PC before the Magistrate and submitted that in this case, incident took place on 4-10-2001 at 6 P.M., at that time, Dadhi Bal Singh, Jabar Singh, Tahsildar Singh and complainants were at their house. The accused persons along with Virendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Kallu, Chhunna, Rukuvendra Singh, Neelu alias Kunal Singh and Lokendra Singh came with the common intention along with deadly weapons like gun,katta, saria and lathi and assaulted on the complainant party by gun fire and...
Lakhanlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3962; 2004(4)MPLJ423
S.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal is filed by appellant Lakhan Lal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 15-5-2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 366 and 506, Part II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,000.00, R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 300.00 and R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 100.00, respectively. All the above sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that in the intervening night of 7th and 8th April, 2000 prosecutrix Swati was sleeping in her house. Her parents and siblings were also sleeping in the house. At about 3 a.m. appellant armed with an axe entered the house of prosecutrix. He collected her wearing apparels and caught hold of her hand and took her with him. He gave threat to the prosecutrix that if she will shout...
Madanlal Gangle Vs. Mrs. Manjula
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: I(2004)DMC756
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1997 in Civil Suit No. 6-A/1995 whereby his petition filed for the divorce and on the ground of cruelty was dismissed.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between appellant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1992 according to the Hindu rites and customs and both were working in Government College as a Lecturer and in the year 1995 son was born out of the wedlock.3. The case of the appellant petitioner is that his wife was in habit of insulting and misbehaving and whenever he went to meet his wife at Jaora, where she was posted as Lecturer, the respondent forced him to prepare the meals and wash the clothes and do other domestic work. That the respondent has refused to live with him and she has not turned up to her matrimonial house even at the time of the death of his father. That the defendant has got herse...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ16; 2004(4)MPLJ143
S.L. Jain, J.1. Appellants Mohan Lal, Rajendra and Shakuntala Bai stand convicted for offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for ten years each, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29-9-1994, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, in Sessions Trial No. 208/92.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant Rajendra is the husband of deceased Sushila Bai. Appellant Mohan Lal and Shakuntala Bai are parents of Rajendra. The marriage of Rajendra and deceased Sushila Bai was solemnized in June, 1991. The death of Sushila Bai occurred on 24-592, otherwise than under normal circumstances. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the marriage of Sushila Bai with appellant-Rajendra and before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand for dowry. Whenever the deceased used to go to her parental home, she used to inform her parents and brothers regarding the harassment and demand of dowry. Th...
Jai Prakash Tripathi Vs. Arjun Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC844
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him. The only question involved in the appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper.2. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the claimant for injuries. The Tribunal has found fractures on tibia and fibula bone of the left leg of the claimant on the basis of X-ray report. It has also come on record that due to the said fracture a steel rod was inserted in the leg of the claimant after operation and subsequently the same was removed. The claimant could not perform his duties for a period of ninety days and did not get the salary for the said period. The salary of the claimant is Rs. 2,500/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering, but has not awarded any amount for loss of income and other expenditure.3. Considering these facts,...
Radha Mohan Goswami and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR312]; (2004)IIILLJ794MP; 2004(2)MPHT49; 2004(2)MPLJ326
ORDER1. As common questions are involved in all these cases and facts arc also identical, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioners in all these petitions are working in the Water Resources Department. Initially, they were appointed on daily wage basis in the post of Copyist, Typist, Reference and have been continuously working from various dates prior to 31-12-1988.3. It is the case of the petitioners that some of them are working since 1982 and 1983, were agitating their claim for being regularised in service before various forums. Some of the employees had filed applications before the Labour Court claiming their classification as permanent employees and certain other employees had taken action for filing applications before the State Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation in service. When such proceedings were pending in the case of some of the employees, State Government issued circulars on 31-12-1999 and clarified the same by another circular dated 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »