Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Reshambai Vs. M.P. Govt. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3977
ORDERS.S. Dwivedi, J.1. Heard.The applicant has preferred this revision under Section 397, Cr. P.C. feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26-8-2006 passed by C.J.M. Rajgarh in Criminal Case No. 398/04 whereby acquitted the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the charge under Sections 294, 323 and 509, IPC.2. Fact of the case are that this case has been fixed for prosecution evidence on 5-4-2005, thereafter on 14-6-2005, then on 25-8-2005, then on 19-10-2005, thereafter on 17-1-2006. On these dates, the witnesses remain absent, therefore, again the case has been fixed for evidence on 22-4-2006. On this date, the witnesses remain absent after their service. Then Court has ordered for issuance of the bailable warrant of Rs. 500/- and fixed the case on 26-4-2006. On this date also, the complainant and her witnesses remain absent, therefore, learned trial Court has closed the prosecution evidence and on the same date, pronounced the judgment of acquittal, hence this revi...
Puma Ispat Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. Pramod Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: II(2007)BC433; 2007(2)MPHT259
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 26-7-04 passed in Criminal Revisional No. 311 of 03 by VIIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore and direction to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore for conducting a de novo adjudication of Criminal Case No. 109 of 01, a complaint filed by petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) against the respondent which has been dismissed by learned Magistrate on the ground that the said complaint filed under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable.2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner Manoj Kasliwal being Managing Director of M/s Puma Ispat Trading (P) Ltd. sold Steel Sheets to the respondent in normal course of business who in turn issued a cheque of Rs. 4,06,920/-bearing No. CCL 136021, dated 23-5-1996 and handed over to the petitioner after putting his signatu...
In Re: Jagmohan Parashar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2079; 2007(3)MPLJ238
Abhay Gohil, J.1. This is a reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by Special Judge (Atrocities) and Additional District and Session Judge and Additional Session Judge, Gwalior.2. Brief facts of the reference are that Shri Rajendra Mahajan, Special Judge (Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior was presiding over the session trial No. 330/04 in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh, through police station Kotwali, Gwalior against one accused Jagmohan. On 19-1-2007 the aforesaid session trial was listed for final judgment. At about 12 o'clock in the noon, the learned Judge called the case. Accused Jagmohan was present along with his Advocate Shri Shailendra Singh. Susendra Singh Parihar, Assistant Public Prosecutor was also present on behalf of the State. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was also assisted by Shri M.S. Yadav, Advocate. Accused Jagmohan' was under custody. The judgment was pronounced and accused Jagmohan was found guilty under Sect...
Satyendra Kushwaha Vs. Jitendra Kumar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPHT324
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 25-10-2002 passed in Claim Case No. 48/2002 (Non Fatal) by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Jabalpur. The Commissioner by the said order has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,77,550/- towards compensation.2. The facts leading to the present case are that the present appellant was employed as Conductor in Truck No. 20- G/1675 on 12-3-2002 when the truck was going from Jabalpur to Gotegaon for loading grains. Suddenly one tyre got punctured. The present appellant being the conductor fixed the jack for changing the tyre but the jack slipped from its position. As a result of which the left hand of the present appellant was pressed and got fractured. The present appellant at the time of accident was aged about 21 years and was getting salary @ 4000/- per month.3 The claim of appellant is that injuries, which were sustained by h...
Shivmangal Through L.Rs. Vs. Narainprasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT441; 2007(2)MPLJ445
S.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. He lost in the Trial Court. Dispute relates to the residential house situated in Dewas more particularly described in Para 4 of the plaint. Plaintiff sought declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit house supra.2. In this appeal, it is admitted that the suit house belonged to Ramcharanlal who died issue-less on 5-6-1980. He had executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 Narainprasad, for collection of the rent from the tenants residing in the suit house. The defendant No. 2 is the son of brother-in-law (wife's brother) of Ramcharanlal. It is also not in dispute that Shivcharanlal (original plaintiff) was the first cousin through male side of Ramcharanlal and Shivmangal, who subsequently came on record as the legal representative of Shivcharanlal was the son of real sister of late Ramcharanlal.3. Shivcharanlal filed the suit seeking declaration that Ramcharanlal died instate and the plaintiff, ...
Makarchand Gauli Vs. Smt. Leelabai Gauli and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT520
1. This revision is referred to the Larger Bench to determine the following question:Whether on account of delay in filing the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, application is liable to be dismissed?2. Right to get maintenance to wife, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves is given under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').3. The controversy has arisen on account of conflicting judgments of this Court on this question. In the case of Kuntibai w/o Alakhram v. Alakhram s/o Jaggulal 1998 (2) MPLJ 635, it is held that the application on the ground of long delay in filing the application for maintenance is liable to be rejected. However, in this case this Court held that besides long delay in filing the application, it has been found by the Courts below that there was no justification for the wife to live separate from her husband and she had sufficient means to maintain hers...
Om Jhanwar Vs. Prabhakar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: III(2007)BC514
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by petitioner complainant for quashment of the proceedings of private Criminal Case No. 964 of 2005 filed by respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) on the ground that complaint has been filed after the period of limitation prescribed under the provisions of Section 142(2) of the Act.2. Short facts of the case necessary for deciding this petition are that petitioner obtained loan of Rs. one lac for a period of one month and an account payee cheque bearing No. 97562 dated 26.4.2003 was issued in favour of respondent for repayment of the aforesaid loan amount. The cheque was presented in the Bank for payment which was dishonoured and returned by the Bank to the respondent on 23.10.2003 with an endorsement that sufficient funds are not available in the account of petitioner.On 2.11.2003, ...
National India Rubber Workers Ltd. Vs. Employee's State Insurance Corp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ1014MP
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The order passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected two miscellaneous appeals i.e., M.A. No. 768/2003 National India Rubber Works Ltd., Katni v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. and M.A. No. 606/2003 (National India Rubber Works Ltd., Katni v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr.2. The instant appeal, has been filed under Section 82 of the Employees State insurance Act, 1948; (in short 'the Act'). The appellant company is registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1926 having its registered office at Katni and is also having a factory. The appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of articles made of Rubber used in surgical, medical and Laboratory, Soda Water Accessories and also article which are used in various industrial units such as Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur. Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur ITI, Railway etc.3. According to the appellant in its factory premises, there are various process ...
Chandmal Vs. Laxminarayan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1187
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 24.3.1999 passed by First M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 167 of 1998 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for realization of Rs. 1,80,000 alleging that on 2.11.1997 when the appellant was going to his dhaba (hotel) on a motorbike he met with an accident with a Tempo bearing registration No. MP 04-F 9785 which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. It was also alleged that offending Tempo was owned by respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 turned Tempo towards right side without any indication, with the result, appellant who was going behind Tempo, collided with Tempo. It was alleged that due to accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Appellant was brought to Distric...
Hirendra Bhola Vs. Gulati Marketing Company and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2007MP165
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. A suit for realization of Rs. 2,63,000/- was filed by plaintiff M/s. Gulati Marketing Company against defendants. In para 1 of the plaint it has been pleaded that plaintiff M/s. Gulati Marketing Company is a partnership firm registered with Registrar of Firms and Societies. It has been further pleaded that Praveen Gulati and Vivek Gulati are its partners along with others. According to the plaint averments, defendants are required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,63,000/- to the plaintiff as the transaction took place between the defendants and plaintiff partnership firm. Since the amount has not been paid to the plaintiff firm the suit for its realization has been filed.2. Defendants filed written statement and refuted the averments made in the plaint on several grounds.3. Learned trial Court after framing issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit against which the present appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1.4. The only contention, but ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »