Madhya Pradesh Court February 2007 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.
Shiv Autar and anr. Vs. Hariom and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2007MP130; 2007(2)MPLJ224
ORDERS. Samvatsar, J.1. Shri Rajendra Sagoria, Advocate, for the petitioners.2. Shri Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents.3. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is one of the decree holders challenging the order dated 18-10-2004 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Ambah in Execution Case No. 11A/74 x 2004 whereby the Court has rejected an application filed by the present petitioner for issuing warrant of possession in favour of the petitioner alone.4. The brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed by plaintiffs against respondent No. 3 for possession of a property in which a decree was passed by the trial Court on 14-7-1987. This decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court on 22-12-1992 and was confirmed by the High Court by judgment dated 11-4-1997 and thus, the decree of possession has attained finality.5. The decree was put to execution and in execution proceedings, present petitioner has filed an objection alleging that the warrant of possession should ...
Bhero Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPHT345; 2007(2)MPLJ45
Brij Mohan Gupta, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by appellant/plaintiff No. 2 impugning the judgment dated 14th January, 2000 rendered by 2nd Additional District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 133-A/99, by which the learned Judge has affirmed the order of the Trial Court dated 15-9-99 passed in C.S. No. 74-A/94 by Additional Civil Judge, Class I, Vidisha, wherein the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the applications under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in consequence it was concluded that suit has been abated.2. The brief facts, as revealed by both the judgments and agreed to by both the Counsel for the parties, are that appellant Bhero Prasad alongwith deceased Pannalal (co-plaintiff) filed one civil suit alleging therein that both the plaintiff were joint owners of the dispute land on the basis of a joint Patta, granted in favour of them, by the ex-ruler. When respondent Nos. 2 and 3 caused interference in the p...
Smt. Sushila Bai and anr. Vs. Rajendra Traders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPHT289
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-7-1997 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 14/1986, by IVth Additional District Judge, Indore wherein judgment and decree dated 30-4-1986, passed by IXth Civil Judge Class-II, in Civil Suit No. 91-A/1984, was set aside and the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed, which has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 23-2-1998 on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the finding as to the non user of the accommodation is perverse ?(2) Whether because of the absence of the defendant/tenant from Indore during working hours and presumption could be raised that the accommodation is not being used for the purpose it was taken on rent ?2. Short facts of the case are that on 2-8-1976, a suit for eviction was filed by the appellants against the respondent under Section 12(1)(a) and (d) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter ...
Gendlal Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPLJ462
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Petitioner having obtained electricity connections bearing Nos. 1180 and 1555 from M.P. State Electricity Board (earlier known as M.P. Electricity Board) is a consumer of electricity. The premises of the petitioner was raided by the flying squad of the respondent Board and a bill was raised against him which was revised to Rs. 23,351/- and Rs. 16,045/-, vide demand notice dated 3-7-1998 marked as Annexure P-2. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) of Electricity Board requested the Executive Engineer vide Annexure P-l to make recovery from the petitioner of Rs. 39,396/-. Petitioner's premises was raided thrice during the period from 1990 to 1998, and sum of Rs. 46,736/- against Service Connection No. 1180 and Rs. 73,702/-against Service Connection No. 1555, was found recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner deposited merely Rs. 39,396/- against the amount due from him.2. When the balance money to the tune of Rs. 81,069/- was sought to be r...
Rajkumar Vs. Gunmala and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC227; 2007(1)MPLJ579
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. Mr. C.B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Heard in motion.3. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of the order passed by JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 2264/01 dated 7.11.2006 by which the application moved by present petitioner under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed and which has been confirmed by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore by order dated 8.1.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 755/06.4. Present petitioner and some other persons are facing criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of a private complaint filed by non-applicant No. 1. The case is at the stage of pronouncement of judgment. At this stage an application under Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code has been moved by the present petitioner for recalling the complainant so that some questions can be put to her regarding the present petitioner. The prayer was opposed...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurudhyal Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1511
Rajendra Menon, J.1. As the questions of law involved in all these appeals are identical and as accident in question, out of which these four appeals arise, is also the same, all the appeals are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience averments made in M.A. No. 100 of 1998 are taken note of.2. On 28.8.1993, a Maruti van bearing No. MP 07-2330 driven by the deceased Jaktar Singh was going from Morena to Gwalior, when Maruti van reached certain spot near Banmore on Agra-Bombay Road it dashed with a dumper standing on the road. The number of the dumper was CIH 7594, it was owned by Murarilal Dubey, respondent No. 2 and Shyam Sundaram was the driver of the said dumper and the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. is the insurer of the said dumper. It is stated that the dumper was standing with half of its portion on the road and with no indication or warning signal, as a result, Maruti van rammed into the dumper from behind. The claimant Gurudhyal Singh, the respond...
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPHT293; 2007(1)MPLJ564
ORDERA.P. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 146/2005, dated 7-10-05 allowing the criminal revision filed by non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 against the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena in Criminal Case No. 26/2005, order dated 7-7-2005. In the Trial Court, petitioner moved an application under Section 190 of Cr.PC for taking cognizance against the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. The application was opposed by non-petitioners in the Trial Court and the Trial Court after hearing the parties allow the application filed by the complainant and taking cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.PC and issued non-bailable warrant for arrest in the case.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Morena and after hearing both the parties the Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court on the ground that cases was registered...
Kiran Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPLJ132
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for expunction of remarks made against the petitioner in Paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the judgment dated 25-3-2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial Case No. 151/2005.2. The short facts of the case are that petitioner was working on the post of Station House Officer at Police Station, Sarangpur at the relevant time. On 8-3-2005 one Kamal Singh s/o Shankaralal informed at Police Station, Sarangpur, that 5 days ago his mother Bhawaribai had gone to work at Village Padlya Mata, with his sister Sunita and had not returned home since then. Though Sunita returned home on the same day. On the basis of this information, a missing person report No. 7/2005 was registered at the Police Station, Sarangpur and during the course of investigation pursuant to this report on 24-3-2005 such Bhanwaribai was traced and found at bus stand Sarang...
indore Rolling Mills and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPLJ64
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 5-4-1995 in C.S. No. 18-B/91.2. The respondent State of M.P. Irrigation Department through Executive Engineer filed a civil suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 98,249.80 along with interest on account of 55.629 MT iron rods which were not returned after rerolling to the State of M.P. as per agreement (Ex. P-1), dated 21-9-1971. Plaintiff State of M.P. used to send iron for the purpose of rerolling to the defendant, however, defendants obtained the iron for the purpose of rerolling but did not return it back in the form of rods. 7% wastage was allowed to the defendant. On different dates total 65.547 MT iron was supplied after wastage of 7%. Defendant had to supply 60.959 MT rerolled iron rods, however, defendants supplied only 9.22 MT. A sum of Rs. 1,00,132.20 was due as value of goods not supplied. In spite of notices and acknowledgment made in the ...
Devendra Kumar Vs. Rajendra Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1611
Abhay Gohil and P.K. Jaiswal, JJ.1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 28.4.2000 passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 17 of 1999.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.3.1998 the appellant-injured, Devendra Kumar, was travelling on his own scooter and at 2 p.m. he was going from Gwalior to Morena. One Brijmohan was sitting as a pillion rider on the scooter. The claimant is working as a constable in 5th SAF Battalion. When he reached near the Battalion Camp, a tanker No. MP 06-E 0145, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came and dashed the scooterist. As a result of the accident appellant and pillion rider Brijmohan both received severe injuries. The matter was reported to the police, crime was registered and the appellant-claimant filed claim petition for compensation. The claim was contested. But after recording the evidence of the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›