Madhya Pradesh Court November 2007 Judgments
Radheshyam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT512
A.P. Shrivastava, J.1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 31-1-2001 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Moreria (M.P.) in S.T. No. 95/95, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 304(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and under Section 324 of IPC, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.2. As per the prosecution story, on 20-8-94 in the evening at about 5.30 at Village Singpura, Mule Singh , the cousin of informant Sobran Singh (P.W. 2) was in the field and appellant Radheshyam alongwith co-accused Pappu and Sobir were grazing cattle in the field. Mule Singh opposed for grazing the cattle in the field. Thereafter, the accused and co-accused Sobir (who tried by Juvenile Court) came with ballam, farsa, lathi and gun. Appellant Radheshyam inflicted injury by ballam to the head of Mul...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT447
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. The short question which is involved in this petition is only this that whether a condition of depositing value of the catties in cash can be imposed while handing over the catties in temporary custody under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr. PC.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur allowed the Criminal Revision Nos. 275/07 and 278/07 moved by the present petitioners for temporary custody of the catties to be handed over to the present petitioners but at the same time has also imposed a condition that Rs. 3000/- for each cattle should be deposited by the present petitioners in the Court in cash. He submitted that this condition is quite harsh and it is not possible for the petitioners to comply this condition and to deposit the entire amount in cash. He submitted that in a subsequent order which has been passed regarding temporary custody of some other catties, which were seized in the same crime, such condition was ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailashvan Goswami Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT531
ORDERJitendra K. Maheshwari, J.1. This petition was filed before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal assailing the validity of the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 25-2-99 retiring him compulsorily after a regular departmental inquiry and to assail the orders passed in appeal on 27-3-99 and in mercy appeal on 11 -10-99. On abolition of the Tribunal, it is received to this Court for final adjudication.2. It is the case of petitioner that he was recruited as Constable on 15-11-72 in District Jhabua. While he was posted in DRP Line, a notice dated 16-3-98 was served with the allegation of contracting the another marriage with one Kalawati while his earlier wife Smt. Suganabai is alive, which is in contravention to Rule 22(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter it be referred as 'Rules of 1965') however penalty to stoppage of one increment for one year was proposed. The petitioner had not filed the reply due to his ailment, however respondent No. 4 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhiyalal (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Vs. Vishnu Giri and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ942
N.K. Mody, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 5.9.2006, passed by Additional M.A.C.T., Jhabua in Claim Case No. 220 of 2005. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,23,500 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Kanhiyalal, who died in a vehicular accident. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent?2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensatio...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meera and ors. Vs. Jolly Road Lines and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT67
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants being aggrieved dismissal of the claim petition as per award dated 7-8-02 passed by IXth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MVC No. 96/2000.2. The claimants widow, minor children and parents of the deceased Ram Sahay (aged about 38 years) have preferred claim petition on account of death of Ram Sahay in an accident dated 17-1-2000. The truck (MP 20-G/0191) was towing another truck (MP 20-A/992) due to rash and negligence driving of the truck No. MP 20-G/0192 the motorcycle dashed with the truck No. MP 20-A/992 Ram Sahay got entangled alongwith motorcycle with it Ram Sahay sustained injuries and motorcycle was also damaged. The report of the accident was lodged at Police Station Shahpura. The deceased was a teacher in the Govt. School and used to earn a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Compensation of Rs. 22,88,000/- was claimed. The truck No. MP 20-G/0192 was owned by respondent No. 1 -Jolly Road Lines, the re...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balu Banjara and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT252
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 1337/05 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopal s/o Kachru and Ors.). In both the appeals the award is one which is dated 2-2-2005 passed by the 7th M.A.C. Tribunal, Fast Track, Ujjain, whereby Claim Case No. 63/04 as also 62/04 were decided.2. The short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 claimants Gopal and Balu filed a claim petition alleging that on 13-7-2002 at about 2 p.m. they were going on a motor bike. At that time, JCB machine, which was owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No. 3 and insured with the appellant was driven by respondent No. 3 negligently and rashly with the result the claimants sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that since the JCB machine was insured with the appellant, therefore, respondent No. 1 is entitled for compensation from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also from the appellant. The claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds in...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Chaudhry Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT229
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.Challenging the order Annexure A-1, dated 9-6-2000, passed by the respondents directing to recovery of one increment granted to the petitioner for having undergone for family planning operation and to recover the proposed amount from the salary of the petitioner, this application has been filed in the year 2000 before the State Administrative Tribunal and after winding up of the Tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court.2. Applicant was holding the post of Asstt. Teacher and in the year 1989, it is stated that his wife had undergone the family planning operation and accordingly, a green card Annexure A-2 was issued to the petitioner recording the fact that after birth of second child, his wife has undergone the operation on 28th August, 1989. On the basis of aforesaid operation undertaken by the petitioner's wife and in view of the policy of the State Government as contained in Annexure A-3, two advance increments were granted to the petitioner. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT18
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The appellant is a Sub-Engineer working in the RES Division at Satna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. By an order dated 3-10-2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Rewa, the appellant has been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No. 14889/2007 (S) before this Court challenging the order of suspension and by an order dated 26-10-2007 the learned Single Judge while admitting the writ petition directed that the interim relief shall be considered after the respondents file the reply. Aggrieved by the order dated 26-10-2007 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14889/2007 (S), the appellant has filed this appeal.2. Mr. Dilip Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge should have stayed the order of suspension passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Rewa while admitting the writ petition because the order of suspension is without jurisdiction. He submitt...
Tag this Judgment!Meharban Singh Vs. Smt. Pushpabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT452
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 23-12-06 passed by MACT, Dewas, the present appeal/revision has been filed by the appellant/petitioner who is owner.2. Short facts of the ease are that claim petitions were filed by the injured who are respondent No. 1 in all the matters alleging that on 23-8-05 respondent No. 1 were going in a bus bearing registration No. MP 04 H-7291, it was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 the offending bus turtle down, with the result respondent No. 1 sustained injuries. It was alleged that the offending bus was owned by appellant and insured with respondent No. 2. On the basis of aforesaid facts it was prayed that the claims petition be allowed and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and appellant be held liable for payment of compensation. The claim petition was contested by the appellant as well by respondent No. 2. The defense taken by respondent No. 2 was that the respondent No. 3 was not possessing valid driving...
Tag this Judgment!R.D.S. Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT237; 2008(1)MPLJ362
ORDERRajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the order Annexure A-1, dated 1st October, 1997 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and the order Annexure R-1 again passed by the respondents on 30th September, 1999 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and confirming the earlier order, petitioner has filed this petition. Initially application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior on 11-10-1999 and after winding up of the Tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court.2. Petitioner was initially appointed as overseer (Sub-Engineer) in the respondents department vide order dated 1-1-1966, he joined service on 21st January, 1966. He was promoted vide order Annexure A-2, dated 17-8-1983. In the meanwhile on 14-1-1986 petitioner was sent on deputation to River Board, Jhansi where he worked for 4 years between 14-1-1986 to 13-1-1990 and thereafter on completion of deputation was posted in Janua...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »