Madhya Pradesh Court May 2006 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.
Abdul Salam Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4734
S.K. Pande, J.1. Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 185/89 vide impugned judgment dated 17-7-91 recording conviction of appellant under Section 376 of the IPC sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years. Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.PC.2. Prosecutrix (P.W. 2) per post sent a letter dated 14-4-89 (Ex. P-1) to the Police stating inter alia that while she was working at the residence of Abdullah (P.W. 3) she came in contact with the appellant and remained indulged in sexual intercourse since February, 1988. As a result in the month of November-December she conceived a pregnancy. Appellant developed intimacy on assurance of marriage, however, the pregnancy being disclosed appellant suggested for an abortion. Prosecutrix (P.W. 2) declined to abort and a week before 20-5-89 delivered a female child. On the basis of letter (Ex. P-1) the police on its own recorded FIR (Ex. P-5) on 19-5-89 and sent the prosecutrix (P.W. 2) for medical exa...
Devendra Sharma Vs. Sandhya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007MP103
S.L. Jain, J.1. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') appellant/ plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 8-12-97 passed by First Addl. District Judge, Raisen, in Matrimonial Case No. 44-A/94.2. The facts which led to filing of this appeal may be shortly narrated thus; appellant filed a petition under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act for declaring the marriage solemnized between him and respondent as void by a decree of nullity on the ground that respondent was at the time of marriage pregnant by some person other than the appellant stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rituals on 5-5-92. After the marriage the respondent stayed at her marital home for few hours and after customary Pooja of Goddess without consummating the marriage she returned to her parental home alongwith her brother. S...
Rajesh Gupta Vs. Prabha Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ378
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant has called in question the presentableness of the judgment and decree dated 15-3-2005 passed by the learned Presiding Judge Family Court, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 39-A/2003.2. The respondent filed an application under Section 13(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The case of the respondent before the Family Court was that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendants was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 22-114991 at Bhopal. At the time of marriage the defendant-husband was working as Assistant Engineer under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board at Sehore. After entering into the wedlock the defendant-husband used to up-down between Bhopal and Sehore for a period of one and a half year and thereafter he started staying at Sehore. At the time of marriage, as setfor...
G.P. Bhargawa Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ92
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 8-3-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 3376/2006 (S).2. The facts briefly are that the appellant was posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sohagpur, in District Hoshangabad since July, 2004. The Collector, Hoshangabad, submitted a report to the State Government alleging various acts of misconduct committed by the appellant and recommending that he be placed under suspension. Thereafter, the State Government placed the appellant under suspension by order dated 23-2-2006. Aggrieved by the said order of suspension, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition but by order dated 8-3-2006 the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8-3-2006 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this appeal.3. Mr. Shroti, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Services (Executive) Rules, 1973 (in sho...
Manjla Alias Mahendra and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ65
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.PC, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 502/2001 on 14-3-2002, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 195, Cr.PC and has also challenged the legality of the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 52/2002 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha on 4-7-2002, whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision.2. Brief facts of the case are that a criminal case was pending in the Court of JMFC Vidisha against the petitioner No. 1. Due to his non-appearance in that criminal case, the warrants of arrest were issued against him. Subsequently, he appeared and he was directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds. Petitioner No. 2 was the surety in the case. The learned Magistrate found that on 9-3-1999, petitioner No. 2 appeared before the Court of ACJM Vidisha a...
JaineesuddIn and ors. Vs. JabesuddIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ342
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Heard finally.2. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code challenging ex parte order passed by SDM, Chanderi on 16-7-2001, which has been affirmed by Revisional Court vide order dated 29-11-2002.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed an application before SDM, Chanderi under Sections 145 and 146, Criminal Procedure Code. The SDM, Chanderi instead of passing the preliminary order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, passed an order under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code and directed for the attachment of the land in dispute and for handing over its possession to third person and thereafter directed for registration of the case as well as for notice to the opposite party. This ex parte order was challenged by the petitioners in a revision but unfortunately learned Addl. Sessions Judge without considering this aspect...
Praveen Vaidya Vs. Kailash and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2100
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This order shall govern the aforesaid both the appeals, i.e., M.A. No. 1356/97 and M.A. No. 1357/97 as both are arising out of the same award, although from the different claim cases but relating to the same accident.2. The appellant owner of the offending vehicle has directed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in short 'The Act' being aggrieved by the award dated 30-6-1997 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case No. 189/92 and Claim Case No. 190/92 awarding the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against the appellant and the respondent No. 5, the driver by exonerating the respondent No. 6-insurer and respondent No. 7, the rickshaw puller.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that on dated 25-5-1989 at about 9 o'clock in the night Namdeo Karade and his wife Smt. Kamla Bai, the mother of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 alongwith children were going toward the Railway Station in a rickshaw of resp...
Smt. Munnibai and ors. Vs. Barelal Lodhi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT194
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Present appellants are heirs of original plaintiff Gopal Prasad, who died during the pendency of the suit. A suit for declaration of ownership of the suit land was filed by plaintiff with a further relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and also from cutting grass.2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that plaintiff is Bhumiswami of the disputed property. He bought the suit property from defendants by registered sale-deed dated 16-10-70 for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. After the purchase of the suit property, plaintiff is possessing the same. The name of plaintiff and his possession is recorded in the revenue record by virtue of said sale-deed dated 16-10-70. The defendants on false assertion of fact that they have not sold the land to the plaintiff are threatening to dispossess him from the suit land. By amendment the plaintiff pleaded that at the request of defendants he did confer rights of re-conveyance and leas...
Jagdish Rathore S/O Chokhelal Rathore Vs. Nathuram S/O Gorelal Chauras ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2007MP8
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment of reversal passed by First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 3-B/2004 dated 31.3.2005 whereby the judgment and decree dismissing the suit of plaintiff/respondent passed by the trial court has been reversed and set aside and the suit of plaintiff/respondent has been decreed for Rs. 35,000/- with 6% per annum interest from 10.1.2000.2. A suit for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution was filed by plaintiff/respondent. According to the plaint averments plaintiff is a Government servant and is serving on the post of teacher in primary school. From 1967 he is serving in different schools and there was no complaint against him. His service career remained unblemished. The parents and the students pay high respect to him. In the year 1996 he was transferred from Primary School, Sindoor Khana to village Jeen. On 8.3.1997 he came to know that some report has been lodged against him in p...
Rakesh Taparia Son of R.N. Taparia Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: [2008]300ITR368(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 23-9-2003, passed by I.T.A.T., Indore in I.T. (SS) A. No. 05 /Ind. /2001. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law:1 Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount disclosed in VDIS by the assessee prior to commission of raid effected under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act cannot be considered against the estimation of income from alleged Hawala business ?2. Whether assessee is entitled to claim any benefit of VDIS disclosure in block assessment period cases to avoid assessment in respect of the income which according to him he had already disclosed in VDIS as admittedly the estimated income did not exceed the disclosure made in VDIS ?2. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri P. Prasad, learned Counsel for the assessee/appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »