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.
Smt. Suman Kali Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Smt. Dharmwati and Two ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT326
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. Appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal against the award dated 14-9-2002 passed by 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa for enhancement of awarded amount.2. On 8-10-2000 at about 3.00 a.m. Rajbhan Jaiswal husband of appellant No. 1 while father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and son of appellant Nos. 5 and 6 was going to Allahabad by tractor trolley bearing registration No. M.P. 17-D-1976 and M.P. 17-D-1977 driven by Vijay Shukla, respondent No. 2 in rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the brake. Resultantly, Rajbhan fell down sustained injuries, but on the way to hospital he succumbed to injuries. The tractor was owned by respondent No. 2 while insured with respondent No. 3. The deceased was a mason and earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. In addition to it he was also involved in agriculture and selling the vegetables and earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. Thus, he was earning total Rs. 9,000/- p.m. Due to untimely death of the deceased appellants were lost the...
Sudhir and ors. Vs. Smt. Sushila
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT42
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the accused persons is directed against the order dated 9-2-2005 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, whereby he has dismissed the revision confirming the order of framing of charges as passed by the Trial Court.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Damoh, on the basis of complaint case filed by the respondent, has issued process against the petitioners and co-accused Rishi Dhagat for offences under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Sections 420, 422, 427 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife whilst petitioner No. 3 and co- accused Rishi Dhagat are their sons. They are Joint Hindu Family and are owner of the shop that belonged to the father of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners are Jewellers by profession. On 11-12-2002, the petitioners had approached the respondent and t...
Ramswaroop and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ475
A.K. Gohil, J.1. Appellants have been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 30-7-92 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 57/89. Against their conviction and sentence they have filed this appeal.2. As per prosecution story, on 24-12-88 the incident took place at about 11.30 a.m. in the forest under Police Station Subhashpura, district Shivpuri. The place of incident was 12 Kms. away from the police station. FIR of the incident was lodged by Rajaram (PW-1) on the same day at about 13.45 p.m. As per the FIR, he had gone in the forest near Kataghat to cut some bushes. When he was cutting the bushes, he heard the cries. Somebody was weeping and shouting. He came towards cries near the passage and he saw that Ramswaroop Gujar, Ramhet Gujar and Narayan Singh Gujar of his village armed with farsa, axe and ballam were assaulting Ramhet son of Mangal Singh by these weapons. After seeing them he raised voice...
Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Harishchandra Lodwal ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2006MP34; 2005(4)MPLJ164
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24-1-2003, passed by VII ADJ, Indore, in Arbitration Execution Case No. 9/02, whereby application for transfer of decree has been dismissed, the present revision has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the award was passed in favour of the petitioner on 1-11-2002. Petitioner moved an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of the award before the Learned Court below. Petitioner also moved another application for transfer of the decree. Further prayer was that since respondents are residing at Delhi, therefore the decree be transferred to the Court of Delhi. By the impugned order Learned Court below has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner is at liberty to file the execution proceedings at Delhi itself.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 laid down the jurisdiction which reads as und...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheela Bai JaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ1126
Arun Mishra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 aggrieved by the award dated 27.11.2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Case No. 54 of 1998 (Fatal).2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 is mother of deceased Manoj Kumar Jain and respondent No. 2, Rajendra Kumar Jain, who is the owner of truck No. MP 20-G 4416.3. An application was filed by the respondent No. 1 claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act against Rajendra Kumar Jain and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Truck was owned by Rajendra Kumar Jain and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.4. It was alleged in the application that Manoj Kumar Jain was cleaner of the truck and was employed by Rajendra Kumar Jain. Truck had met with an accident on 26.7.1997, when it turned turtle on Temar Bridge. When the truck Turned turtle, deceased Manoj was the cleaner of the truck and was looking after the truck in the course of ...
Gajraj Vs. Fulkunwar Bai Alias Fulwati Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: II(2006)DMC55; 2005(3)MPHT458
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J. 1. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 17-7-2001 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 1999, whereby the order dated 3-8-1999 granting maintenance to non-applicants passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 60 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sehore, was confirmed.2. In short, the facts of the case are that non-applicant No. 1 Fulkunwar Bai, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, claiming maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month for her from the applicant. According to Fulkunwar Bai, she was married to the applicant by way of Natra as per the prevailing customs. She had gone to the house of the applicant and lived with him for a short period but when the applicant started consuming liquor and beating and harassing her under intoxication, she left h...
Amarlal Yadav Vs. Smt. Narmada Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT46; 2005(4)MPLJ193
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. In brief, factual aspect of the present case is that respondent/complainant Smt. Narmada Yadav is daughter of petitioner/accused. Since Narmada Yadav had left her parents' house and against the wishes of her father married Sohanlal Yadav, therefore, her father (petitioner) called a meeting of about 100 people of the village and before them uttered the words 'Too Gair Mard Ke sath Bhagi Ladki Hai, Too Shadi Se Pahle Bigad Kar Bhagi thi, Gunde Ki Patni Hai' to which Narmada felt aggrieved and defamed. Being aggrieved, she filed private complaint against Amarlal under Sections 500 and 509, IPC, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Waraseoni. Evidence of complainant under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.PC was recorded and cognizance of the offence under Sections 500 and 509, IPC was taken. The complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 411 of 2001. Petitioner filed an application under Section 245(2), Cr.PC before the Trial Court claiming the charge...
Mukesh Kumar Manhar and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT270; 2006(1)MPLJ238
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The petitioners are registered Architects possessing Decree in Architecture (B. Arch.). They are presently employed respectively as Draughtsman and head Draughtsman in the office of the Chief Architect-cum-Chief Engineer (RDD), State Public Works Department. They belong to the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Engineering (Gazette) Service constituted under the M.P. Public Works Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 (for short the 'Recruitment Rules'). Their next promotional post is Assistant Architect-Class II.2. The recruitment to the post of Assistant Architect is governed by the Recruitment Rules. Schedule I to the said Recruitment Rules describes the post of Assistant Architects as a Class II post. Schedule II to the Rules prescribes the mode of recruitment. Earlier the posts of Assistant Architects were required to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Senior Architectural Draughtsman in the Chief Architect's Office havi...
Dagdulal Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR635]; 2005(4)MPHT323; 2005(4)MPLJ553
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. The petitioner was working on Group 'D' post in the Postal Department. On attaining the age of superannuation he was retired w.e.f. 1-4-1995 and was getting pension. A letter dated 17-11-1999 was issued to him by the third respondent informing him that as he is undergoing sentence of 7 years imprisonment for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for the present he can not be paid pension. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 774/2000. The Tribunal by order dated 15-7-2002 dismissed the said O.A. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.2. The petitioner contends that the said letter by which his pension is withheld is violative of Rule 8(1)(b) and (2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Rules for short) as the said letter does not indicate as to whether the decision to withhold his pension is taken con...
Premlata Shukla and ors. Vs. Sitaram Rai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1081
U.C. Maheshwari, J.1. Appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal against dismissal of their claim vide award dated 8.2.2002 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Claim Case No. 5 of 2001.2. According to claimant on 23.1.2001 deceased Shivnandan Prasad Shukla along with appellants who are his wife and son were travelling from Bhopal to Allahabad in a Tempo Trax bearing the registration No. MP 04-H 5525 driven by Sitaram, the respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner met with an accident near Rahat-garh with the truck which came from the opposite direction in normal speed. Resultantly, appellant No. 1, deceased and other persons sustained injuries and were taken to the hospital at Sagar. During the course of treatment he succumbed to injuries. The jeep was owned by respondent No. 2 while insured with the respondent No. 3. The incident was reported to police Rahatgarh. On registration of the offence by holding investigation, the respondent No. 1 w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »