Madhya Pradesh Court February 2005 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.
Akil and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2069
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellants-accused have filed the appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 9-10-2002 in Sessions trial No. 113/1998 decided by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, Camp at Sendhwa of their conviction and sentence under Section 307/149 of the IPC for the RI of 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/-; for offence under Section 324/149 for the RI of 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-; and under Section 14 of the IPC for the RI of 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 year, 6 months and 6 months respectively. All the sentences to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that on 8-4-1997 at about 4.00 p.m. when complainant Bharat Kumar (PW-1) with his mother Leelabai (PW-2), brother Naresh Kumar and father were sitting in their house at village Tagore Bedi, all the accused persons shouting - 'that the Hindus should be killed' entered into the house of complainant Bharat Kumar...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gabrial India Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(MP)281; [2006]282ITR58(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern disposal of other connected appeal being IT Appeal No. 62 of 1999, as both these appeals are filed against the same respondent/assessee and secondly, both the appeals involve identical point.2. This is an appeal filed by CIT under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 24th Feb., 1999, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No., 628/Ind/1998. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that penalty has been levied against a wrong person and hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law even when penalty who has committed default under Section 203 read with Section 194C of IT Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the person as used in Section 203 of IT Act was ...
Amit Kumar Tiwari Vs. Malta Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC70; 2006ACJ2593; 2005(2)MPLJ466
Dipak Misra, J.1. The question of law being common in both the cases they were heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts stated in W.P. No. 452 of 2005 are adumbrated herein.2. The petitioner is the owner of bus bearing registration No. MPA 6529. The said vehicle, as pleaded, was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, met with an accident on 19.1.1986 as a consequence of which two persons were injured who succumbed to the same. Petitioner on 26.1.1986 intimated about the accident to the Branch Manager of the insurance company.3. According to the writ petitioner the legal representatives of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after expiry of the period of limitation as provided under Section 166(3) of the Act. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') proceeded ex pane against the petitioner and pass...
Subhash Mekurenkur Vs. M.D. M.P. Rajya Krishi Kripnon Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR955]
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 22.7.2003 whereby the petitioners have been reinstated without back wages, the present petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the services of the petitioners were terminated on 31.5.2000 and in reference, vide Award dated 22.7.2003, the petitioners were reinstated. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that when the termination of the petitioners was found illegal, therefore, there was no justification in not awarding back wages, Apart from this, the ground on which, the back-wages has been denied is that petitioners did not try to find out any work.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this cannot be a ground for denying back wages. It is the employer who has to prove that the employee is not gainfully employed during the period when he was out of employment. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel in an order passed by this Court on 13.1.2005 in W.P. No. 591 of 2003 (Gajanand Jaltare v....
Shabbir HussaIn Vs. Dinesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT73
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J.1. The appellant/claimant has filed the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the enhancement of the amount of award dated 2-5-2001 in Claim Case No. 152/2000 passed by learned Second Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwani, whereby the amount of Rs. 70,000.00 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 22-6-2000 was provided to the claimant.2. The case of the claimant is that on 18-5-2000 in the morning at about 11.30 a.m. when the claimant was going on his scooter from Badwani to Anjad, near the Mazar of Peer Baba jeep driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 has hit the scooter from the back side and on account of the collusion the claimant has received the fracture of his right hand and the abrasions caused in the leg and the face. The claimant was referred to the District Hospital, Badwani and thereafter he was treated in the hospital at Indore. That the claimant is a business-man and he is the income tax payee and he...
Shantilal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2(2005)DMC146; 2005(3)MPLJ37
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. The appellant has filed the appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 1.5.2000 in S.T. No. 74/97 by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam of his conviction and sentence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. for the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and under Section 498A for the rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of 2 months.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant accused Shantilal was the husband of Manjubai and their marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and customs in the year 1992. This fact is undisputed that Manjubai has died within 7 years of her marriage on 7.10.1996.3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was in habit of ill-treating and physically assaulting his wife in order to press her to bring the dow...
Mahendra Alias Mula Alias Gajanand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT323
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Aggrieved by his conviction for offence under Section 376(2)(e) of the IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- awarded thereunder by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimar Khandwa, vide judgment dated 30- 12-1998 passed in S.T. No. 211/98, the appellant has appealed to this Court against the said judgment. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. It is alleged that on 24-8-1998 at about 10 o'clock, the prosecutrix had gone to work in the field and after spending an hour there she had gone to cull fuel wood in the jungle. While she was picking fuel wood, the accused approached and inquired from her as to whether she had seen his buffalo. On being told that she had not, the accused caught hold of her hand and stated that he wanted to have intercourse with her. The prosecutrix refused but the accused muffled her mouth. She tried to run away but fell down with the result she sustained injury on her knee. The accu...
H.M. Awasthy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT264; 2005(3)MPLJ329
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The petitioners are employees of Ordnance Factory, Katni. They were posted as Examiners in the Electric Maintenance Section. They were paid incentive bonus as were paid to the maintenance workers. Subsequently, the respondents stopped payment of incentive bonus on the ground that they are not entitled for the same. The respondents also ordered recovery of the amount wrongly paid. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No. 635/2002 for quashing the order of recovery and for a direction to respondents to continue to pay the incentive bonus. The Tribunal by order dated 3-4-2003 dismissed the application on the ground that a claim relating to incentive bonus can not be said to be a dispute relating to 'service matter' and, therefore, it can not be the subject matter of a dispute before the Tribunal. The said order is challenged in this petition.2. Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, ...
Mota @ Nandkishore and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT384; 2005(4)MPLJ311
S.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. The above appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5-12-96 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, in S.T. No. 35/95, by which appellant Mota @ Nandkishore and Chhinga @ Jhalkan have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Mohan and sentenced to imprisonment for life and appellant Tulsiram and Chhinga have been convicted under Section 302 for committing murder of Chhidami. Appellant Mota @ Nandkishore has also been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC of the murder of Chhidami. The sentences awarded to accused Mota @ Nandkishore and Chhinga @ Jhalkan have been directed to run consecutively.2. The case relates to the murder of Mohan and Chhidami. According to the prosecution, on 22-7-94 at about 7.30 p.m. in Village Murgidhana, accused Mota @ Nandkishore had gone to the house of deceased Mohan to recover the amount for taking his goats for grazing. Mohan asked for some time to...
Ram Kishan Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT112
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 7-10-2004, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No. 73/2004 whereby the present applicant has been refused for a permission to contest his criminal case by the Counsel of his choice, hence, this revision has been preferred under Section 397/401, Criminal Procedure Code.2. After perusing the impugned order, I am of the view, that this order deserves to be set aside.3. Applicant engaged a Counsel namely, Brajesh Kishore Pandey to defend his case. Earlier, he was defended by a Counsel appointed by Legal Aid Committee. The prayer to engage the Counsel to defend the case was made from jail where the applicant is kept in judicial custody. By passing the impugned order the permission was rejected while the permission should have been given by the Trial Court in view of the provisions of Section 303 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which says as under :'Right of person against whom proceedings are institu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »