Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Rafiq Mohmmad Vs. Raghuveer Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC491
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the award dated 1.10.2002 passed by 11th MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 83/2001, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,90,000 has been awarded, without any interest, present appeal has been filed.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that breakup of Rs. 1,90,000 is as under:Towards permanent disability : Rs. 90000Towards medical expenses : Rs. 80000Towards loss of income : Rs. 15000Towards pain and sufferings : Rs. 50003. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant sustained compound fractures of tibia and fibula bone and also thrombus of popliteal artery. It is submitted that there was permanent disability upto the extent of 27% which has been duly certified by the Doctor. It is submitted that on account of permanent disability a sum of Rs. 68,400 ought to have been enhanced. On account of medical expenses Rs. 10,000 and on account of loss of income Rs. 9000 ought to have been enhanced.4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, M...
T.R. Sah Vs. Smt. Kundan Kaur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT304; 2006(1)MPLJ41
1. This is a tenant's Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 20-3-1996 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/95 affirming the judgment and decree dated 1-5-1995 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 35-A/93 decreeing the eviction suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. This appeal was admitted on 5-5-1997 on the following substantial question of law:--'Whether the requirement of the respondents could be said to be bona fide under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 when the appellant has filed a suit under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act also ?'When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge being of the view that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi v. Thakur Natthu Singh, 1998 (I) MPJR 462, was not correctly decided, referred the matter for decision...
Radhika Prasad Vs. NuruddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT453; 2005(4)MPLJ406
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This revision is filed by the defendant challenging order dated 7-2-2005 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2005.2. By the impugned order the Court below has rejected an application filed by the present petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 with Section 9, CPC (LA. No. 6).3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of agriculture land bearing Survey No. 311 situated at Sherpura, Vidisha it is alleged that the said land was owned by one Akhter Alam. The plaintiff has entered into an agreement to purchase the said property on 21-3-1967 and is in possession of the suit property. He has paid the entire consideration of Rs. 3,000/- at the time of agreement. He filed the present suit alleging that he may be declared the title holder of the property and his name be mutated in the revenue record against the said property.4. After the notice the defendant p...
A.V. Rao Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT51
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. Heard on admission.2. This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused, is directed for quashing of the charges framed against him under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 15-4-2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 380/2004 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur.3. According to the prosecution case in the year 2001 the petitioner was posted as Deputy Registrar (Examination) in the Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. One of his functions was to make entries in the tabulation chart/revaluation register. During that period one Amit Kumar Shrivastava was a student of B.Sc. 3rd year. His Roll No. was 17321 for the final examination. In the confidential register maintained by the Vishwavidyalaya, Amit Kumar Shrivastava was declared failed as he was awarded only 309 marks. The petitioner by interpolating in the tabulation chart unlawfully increased the marks of Amit Kumar Shrivastava in di...
Ramswaroop and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT303
A.K. Gohil, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 2-4-92 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 157/89 whereby appellants are convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149, 452 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC for one year R.I., life imprisonment, two years' R.I. and two years' R.I. respectively.2. The allegation against the appellants is that they formed an unlawful assembly in Village Nandpur with a common object of committing the murder of deceased Badri and causing injuries to Goura (P.W. 5) and in pursuance of the said common object, injuries were caused to them. Ultimately Badri died (hereinafter referred to as deceased only) and Goura (P.W. 5) sustained injuries.3. In nutshell, prosecution story as unfolded during trial is that on 9-9-89 at about 12 noon, two cows belonging to deceased entered into the field of appellants Ramjilal and Badri and damaged the crop of sesame and groundnut which was standing in ...
Nemichand JaIn Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPLJ126; [2006]145STC639(MP)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. These two petitions involving common questions of fact and law are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Though the respondents are common, the petitioners are different. The petitioner in the first petition is Nemi Chand Jain ('N.C. Jain', for short) and the petitioner in the second petition is S.C.J. Kochhal.2. Section 4 of the M.P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 ('the Act', for short) relates to constitution of Tribunals. By Amendment Act, 2003, the word 'Tribunal' has been substituted by the expression 'Appellate Board'. Section 4 provides that subject to such rules as may be made in that behalf, the State Government may, by notification, with effect from a date specified therein, constitute a Tribunal to exercise the powers and perform the functions conferred on the Tribunal by or under this Act. Rule 4 of the M.P. Vanijyik Kar Niyam, 1995 ('the Rules', for short) as it originally stood, provided that the Tribunal shall consist of three or...
Pavitrabai and ors. Vs. Shankarsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC138
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in M.A. No. 1132/2001 shall also govern the disposal of other three connected appeals being M.A. No. 1079/2001, M.A. No. 1077/2001 and M.A. No. 1080/2001 because all these appeals arise out of one accident and common award.2. We do not wish to burden our order by narrating the facts in detail as in all these appeals only two questions are involved. Firstly, whether the Insurance Company was rightly exonerated from the liability arising out of accident in question and secondly, any case for further enhancement in the compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal in each of the cases, is made out and if so to what extent?3. So far as the issue in regard to liability of Insurance Company is concerned, though we are inclined to uphold that finding but keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in a case reported in : 2003(4)MPHT574 , Jugal Kishore and Ors. v. Ramlesh Devi and Ors., we grant liberty/right in favour of t...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4757
S.L. Jain, J.1. Appellant-Vinod Kumar has been convicted under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default whereof, further R.I. for 2 years.2. The facts of the case lie within narrow compass. On 13-12-97 M.S. Parihar, ASI, Police Station, Kotwali, Mandsaur received an information that appellant along with co-accused Prakash is likely to transport Dodachura of opium. ASI, M. S. Parihar called panch witnesses and informed them regarding the information received by him. A report to that effect was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1012. He also prepared panchanama Ex. P/5 and sent information to his immediate superior. With the police force and the Panch witnesses, ASI Parihar reached bus stand Mandsaur where appellant was standing near the booking office. He was carrying two bags of black colour. Another person Prakash was also present carrying a yellow bag. Appellant was caugh...
Gangaram and ors. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC99; 2006ACJ462
A.M. Sapre and Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.1. Claimants are in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, questioning the legality and validity of the award dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Kukshi, district Dhar (MP) in Claim Case No. 161 of 2004.2. The only grievance raised in appeal is about inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of one Jagdish, who died at the age of 28 years and who was engaged in the profession of a skilled worker, i.e., mason. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,000, along with interest payable at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. So the short question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case for further enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is made out and, if so, to what extent.3. Looking to the controversy involved we do not wish to burden our judgment by narrating the entire facts as they are not necessary. The findings with regard to the liabi...
Habib Vs. Mangilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC297; 2006ACJ421
Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 9.8.2001, passed by 4th Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 114 of 2000.2. The appellant met with a motor road accident and sustained injuries; thereby he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation for the loss caused to him due to the accident. The gist of the case of the claimant-appellant is that on 20.10.2000, he was going on a bicycle from his house towards Mandsaur for attending his work as he was a labourer and was working as hammal. Near the bridge over Shivna river, bus bearing registration No. MKU 7718, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 dashed against him. Due to the impact the appellant sustained injuries and fracture was caused in clavicle bone of his right hand and in scapula. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the appellant was paralysed and has be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »