Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Kapil Upadhyay Vs. Milan Auto
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC312; 2008CriLJ1242
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashment of the proceedings of a private complaint Cr.C. No. 2578/05, which is pending against the present petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore for trial of I he offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act').2. Short facts of the case as narrated in the complaint filed by the respondent are that present petitioner purchased a vehicle from the respondent/complainant and handed over a cheque of Rs. 36,073/- drawn in Transport Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Transport Nagar, Indore. Respondent/complainant presented that cheque for clearance in Unit Trust of India Bank Ltd., Branch-Indore, within the specified time. The cheque was dishonoured by the banker of the present petitioner with a note that 'payment stopped by drawer'. Then notice was given by the respondent to the present petitioner to make the payment, but he ...
Mansingh and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR848]
S.L. Kochar, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants seek indulgence of this Court in the judgment passed by the learned V Addl. Sessions Judge, Dewas in S.T. No. 173/91 on 17-1-1994 thereby finding the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC, convicted and sentenced them each to suffer R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for 15 days and to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer addl. R.I. for 30 days.2. The factual matrix before the trial Court were that on 23-4-89 in the night at 8.00 p.m. in village Hathiguradiya, when prosecutrix Meerabai and her husband Dayaram, after taking their night meals, were sleeping in their house. At that time accused Jaggu made a call from outside the house. On opening the door by Dayaram accused Umrao, Jagan, Sajan and Devisingh alias Mansingh entered inside the house and started assaulting Dayaram. On this, M...
Sardar Shri Jayendra Rao Vs. Omprakash
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPLJ283
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Heard on admission.2. This civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed against the order dated 17-8-06 passed by XIth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 39-A/2006 whereby delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been accepted.3. Being aggrieved by eviction ordered by the Trial Court non-applicant filed civil appeal before the Appellate Court on 20th April, 2006 challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-8-06 passed in Civil Case No. 18-A/2003 by this judgment and decree, eviction of the applicant under Section 12 (1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was ordered. Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, Counsel for the appellant submitted that once an appeal is not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay then the appeal itself is not maintainable and in view of provision of Order 41 Rule 3 of CPC the appeal was liable to be dismissed....
M.P. State Road Corporation Vs. Wahidan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC398; 2008ACJ1768
ORDER1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A, No. 171/2000 and M.A. No. 638/2000 as all the appeals are arising out of the award dated 15.10.1999 passed by MACT, West Nimar, Mandleshwar. M.A. No. 166/2000 is filed against the award passed in claim case No. 158/1998 while M.A. No. 171/2000 and M.A. No. 638/2000 has been filed against the award passed in claim case No. 168/1998.2. Short facts of the case are on 22.10.1997 offending bus No. M.P.-09-S-3290 was owned by respondent No. 9, driven by respondent No. 8 and insured with respondent No. 10. In the said bus deceased Salim Sheikh who happens to be the husband of respondent No. 1, father of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and one Gajanand who is appellant in M.A. No. 638/2000 and respondent No. 1 in M.A. No. 171/2000 and is being represented by Mr. Subodh Abhyankar, Advocate were travelling. It is also an admitted fact that the offending bus was leased out to appellant at the relevant time.3. In the claim petition, case of the clai...
Narendra Vs. B.C.M. Higher Secondary School and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC258; 2008ACJ1421
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. Heard.2. According to learned Senior Counsel, Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a right of appeal to any person who is aggrieved by an award passed by the Claims Tribunal. Sub-section (2) thereof is in the nature of an exception or proviso to restrict the said right of appeal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is less than Rs. 10,000. According to learned Counsel, the amount in dispute in appeal obviously refers to the amount which is under challenge in appeal. To elaborate this, learned Senior Counsel gave an example. According to him if a claimant prefers claim petition claiming Rs. 10,000 as the total amount of compensation and the Claims Tribunal awards only Rs. 5,000 as compensation, in such a case the amount in dispute in appeal would be the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000 so far as claimant is concerned and the amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded, so far as owner and insurer are concerned because the owner and insurer are trying to get rid of Rs. 5,00...
Smt. Shamim Afroz and ors. Vs. Mehfooz-ul Hasan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPLJ103
Rajendra Menon, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal under Section 100, CPC assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.2. The appeal was admitted on 2nd January 2006 for consideration of the following three substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the Court below has erred in holding that the sale-deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 on the basis of power of attorney is valid when the power of attorney is not filed in the Court to show that the said document contains powers to sell the property?(ii) Whether the sale is void in absence of any consideration? and(iii) Whether the Court below has erred In dismissing the suit as barred by limitation?3. Property in question, which is the disputed property in the present suit consists of various land situated in Village Baike Tehsil Ganj Basoda District Vifisha. The total area of the land is 1.207 hectares and particulars of the same are given in par...
Laxmandas Vs. Amar Rochwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: 2(2007)BC178
S.S. Dwivedi, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 16.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 3051/2002 whereby acquitted the respondent/accused from the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act for brevity).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent/accused with the allegation that respondent/accused has given a cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the discharge of his liability to the complainant on 10.9.2002. When this cheque was presented by the complainant in his Bank then the said cheque was returned unpaid with the memo stating that the account holder is not having sufficient money in his Bank account. On receipt of this information, appellant/complainant has issued ...
Shyamrao Vs. Champalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC436; 2007(2)MPHT14; 2007(1)MPLJ198
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below dismissing his suit, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100, CPC.2. In brief, the suit of the plaintiff is that the defendant/respondent took a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff on 5.4.1978 and executed a promissory note in his favour. It was agreed between the parties that defendant shall pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1% per month and agreed that whenever the plaintiff will demand the principal amount and the amount of interest, the same shall be paid by the defendant. The plaintiff made demand to pay the principal amount as well as interest several times to the defendant, but, he avoided to repay the said amount. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to realise Rs. 2,000/- principal amount and the interest at the rate of Re. 1% per month w.e.f. 5.4.1978 to 4.4.1980 i.e. for 36 months which comes to Rs. 720/-. In this manner a suit for realization of ...
Sharif Khan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ236
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellant named above stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional RI for three months by judgment dated 28-9-1996 rendered in S.T. No. 312/1993 by the learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court.2. The prosecution case as unfurled before the Trial Court was that on 1 -8-1993 Abdul Hamid was in his house. At that moment Basru quarrelled with Ashiq s/o Hamid and assaulted him. This incident was intervened and pacified by Abdul Hamid. On account of this incident, Ashiq and Basru had gone to lodge report at P.S. Jivajiganj. Abdul Hamid had also gone to Police Station. At the police station, Abdul Hamid came to know that his son Ashiq was referred to the hospital for his medical examination, therefore, he also went to the hospital to see his s...
Ranchhod Bhai and anr. Vs. Amarsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2145
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation of Rs. 89,050, the appellants have filed this appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.2. The claimants are the unfortunate parents of deceased Kamlesh. It was stated that on 21.3.2005 at about 10.30 a.m. their son was going on motor cycle bearing registration No. MP 45-BA 0323 and while he was returning from R.T.O., a bus bearing registration No. MP 09-171 came at an alarming speed and on account of rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus, the accident occurred in which Kamlesh lost his life on the spot. The appellants alleged that Kamlesh was a young boy of 20 years having Diploma in Computer and he was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. In this background, a sum of only Rs. 1,00,000 was paid as compensation.3. The Tribunal, however, decided his income on the basis of notional income and after deducting 2/3rd and applying the multiplier of 17 awarded Rs. 85,000 for loss of dependency. In addition a sum of Rs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›