Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Gopal and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT195
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.The following two questions have been referred to this Bench :--(a) When a first application for bail preferred in a pending appeal under Section 389(1) of the Code has been considered by a Bench and faced rejection and thereafter the second bail application is filed and due to the non-availability of earlier Bench, a second Division Bench deals with the matter and rejects the bail application, the successive and subsequent applications should go before the said Bench or should be listed before the Bench that has been given, the roster to deal with such matter ?(b) If the first application for bail has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code and has been rejected by a Bench and if one of the members is available, whether the subsequent application should be listed before a Bench of which he is a member or should it go before a regular Bench ?2. The facts relevant for decision of the questions referred above are that the application under Section 389(1), Cr.PC fo...
Vijay Kumar Bansal and anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar Rai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC611; 2006ACJ1424; 2005(1)MPHT68; 2005(1)MPLJ404
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. By filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the appellants driver and owner of the offending vehicle have challenged the award dated 9-1-2003 passed by VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27/02, by which the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.2. Shortly stated that facts are : On 14-11-2001 the respondent No. I/claimant was travelling as a passenger in a Bajaj Tempo bearing Registration No. MPQ 3248, As per the respondent No. 1, the said vehicle was being driven by appellant No. 1 rashly and negligently. It dashed to a 'Chabutra'. Due to jerk the respondent No. 1 fell out of the tempo and sustained fracture of left shoulder. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the injuries to the tune of Rs. 95,000/-.3. The appellants denied the rash and negligent driving of ...
Prof. S.K. Nema Vs. Vice Chancellor, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT530; 2004(4)MPLJ375
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 25-5-2004 (Annexure P-12) by which the petitioner has been retired on attaining the age of 60 years.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Scientist-SG in the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6300 in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum. By resolution dated 17-9-1987 respondent No. 1 Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya took a decision to have the services of the petitioner on deputation in this University as a Programme Director. In this resolution it is mentioned that the petitioner 'will be entitled to other facilities such as living accommodation, recognition as a teacher in appropriate category etc. in our University'. By letter dated 19-9-1987 (Annexure P-2) the Vice Chancellor of the University requested the Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum to send the petitioner on deputation to this University. In this letter it is mentioned 'S...
Sher Zamir Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT73; 2004(4)MPLJ510
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20-4-2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mandsaur in Special Case No. 90/1999.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the date of incident, i.e., 31-5-99, the applicant Sher Zamir was below 18 years of age. Therefore, he should have been tried by the learned Juvenile Court. This point was raised by the applicant before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mandsaur who has decided this issue and according to the learned Judge, charge-sheet was filed on 11-8-99. On that day, the applicant was above 18 years of age. Therefore, he would not fall within the definition of 'juvenile'. On this analogy, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned order, certificates filed by the applicant and the provisions of the Act, this Court is of the view that the applicant would not get benefit of Juvenile Justi...
Uma Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT233
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-12-2003 passed by Special Judge, Mandla, in Special Case No. 2/2003 convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') and sentencing her to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, further imprisonment of nine months, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts lie in a narrow compass that in the night of 22-1-2003 Sub Inspector (Excise) Shiv Charan Choudhary received an information through one informant Raju Yadav that one person is carrying liquor in the Balaghat Nainpur G.B.N. Train, as a result of which he alongwith Head Constable Omkar Singh, Sub Inspector Samhar Singh and some other persons alongwith informant Raju Yadav arrived at Pla...
Unitech Limited Vs. Additional Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC648(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1.By filing this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notices issued Under Section 6 read with Section 45(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (annexures C and E) and order dated June 7, 1996 (annexure H).2. The challenge to the impugned notice is essentially on the ground that similar notice Under Section 4-A of the former Act, i.e., Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed and replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994) was issued to the petitioner for the very cause in past and on an inquiry being made a detailed order dated June 6, 1994 (annexure B) was passed withdrawing the notice. It is on this basis, the petitioner has contended that once the similar notice had been issued in respect of the same cause and the issue stands decided by holding an inquiry resulting in passing of the order (annexure B), the respondent (C.T.O) has no jurisdiction to again issue...
Chhotelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT374
Dipak Misra, J.1. The appellant, Chhotelal, and Girjabai the accused have been charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC) in Sessions Trial No. 322/93 on the allegation that Chhotelal had poured kerosene oil on his first wife Sharda Bai in which his second wife Girjabai had abetted, before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sihor in Sessions Trial No. 104/93 and the learned Trial Judge being satisfied with the material brought on record found the accused persons guilty of the charge and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 5-6-93 Sukhram (P.W. 1), the brother of the deceased had left the deceased Sharda Bai in the house of Chhotelal, husband of the deceased, as it was thought apposite by him that the deceased should remain with her husband. The deceased has left the matrimonial life for a period of eight months and came back to stay with Chhotelal. After departure of Sukhram fr...
Patha Alias Laxman Kol Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT313
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10-1-1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar District Satna in Sessions Trial No. 99/91 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life.2. Though the charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant and one other Chhottua alias Chhote, however, the case of Chhotua alias Chhote was sent for trial before the Juvenile Court.3. In brief the case of prosecution is that complainant Ganesh Yadav on 5-7-1991 at 6.10 a.m. lodged the report that in the night at 2 Vijay Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was screaming in his field which is located nearby his (deceased's) house, as a result of which he went at the place of occurrence. The deceased told him that at 2...
Agam Prasad and anr. Vs. Bhakt Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT520; 2004(4)MPLJ348
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the order dated 1-5-2004 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2004 allowing the plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Briefly stated :The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that he is owner of the suit land situated in Jabalpur city on the basis of registered sale deed dated 7-3-1972 and since then he is in possession of the same. He being a businessman had to frequently visit various places out of Jabalpur. In order to protect, supervise and sell his land a registered power of attorney was executed by him on 28-4-89 in favour of defendant No. 2. As one Khasra number was left to be mentioned in the said power of attorney another power of attorney was executed in his favour on 4-10-90. On the basis of power of attorney the defendant No. 2 sold part of the land but did not pay him the ...
State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Jiwanlal Chikotiya and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP76; 2004(4)MPHT497; 2004(4)MPLJ470
1. This appeal is by defendants.2. Plaintiffs/respondents had filed a civil suit claiming therein that a temple delineated by red line with the plaint map be declared as public property and perpetual injunction be issued against the defendants restraining them from damaging the temple. It is pleaded that there is a public temple adjacent to the stores of Public Works Department at Anand Nagar in Thatipur Bajaria. The temple consist of statue of Shiv, Hanuman and Santoshi Maa from past 42 years. Adjacent to the temple a boundary wall has been constructed and in the compound there are fruit bearing trees such as mangoes, jamun, grapes and other trees of neem, sheesham and peepal. The residents worship in the temple. A notice was affixed by defendant No. 2 in the name of plaintiff No. 2 R.C. Chakotia to remove the encroachment within seven days otherwise he will be dispossessed. Thus, cause of action for bringing the suit was from the date of notice by defendant No. 2 to remove the encroa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »