Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Raisingh Vs. Anil and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ73
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other 2 connected appeals being M.A. Nos. 2066 and 2082 of 2006 because all these 3 appeals arose out of common award passed by Claims Tribunal in relation to one accident.2. This is an appeal filed by claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short called 'the Act') against an award dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Thirteenth Member, M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 119 of 2005. By impugned award, the Tribunal has dismissed all the three claim petitions including the one filed by claimant (i.e., appellant herein) under Section 163-A of the Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in accident. So the short question that arises for consideration in these 2 connected appeals is whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petitions filed by claimant under Section 163-A of the Act and if not then whether the claimants-appellants are entitled to claim compensation fo...
Arvind Parwal Vs. B.K. Pandya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC606; [2008]145CompCas302(MP)
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.5.2006 passed in regular First Appeal No. 26/05. By the impugned judgment and decree the appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.2. Appellants had filed a suit for declaration on the allegation that they had purchased certain shares of respondent No. 2 in the year 1991 from the Mumbai Stock Exchange. Subsequent to the purchase because of the Harsh Mehta scam in the share market, and pending investigation/inquiry, there was a ban on transfer of shares by Special Court, Mumbai and shares were seized. According to the plaintiffs they were bona fide purchasers and they were not involved in any scandal or scam. Appellants had filed claim before the Special Court for the release of their shares. On due consideration application was allowed and the shares were released. Thereafter appellants had applied to respondent 2 for transfer and registration of those sha...
Udayveer and Radheshyam Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2745; 2007(3)MPHT556
A.K. Gohil, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 169/02.2. Criminal Appeal No. 325/02 has been filed by appellant Udayveer from jail and appellant Radheshyam has filed Criminal Appeal No. 169/2002 under Section 374, Cr.PC against the common judgment dated 5-4-2002. In Sessions Trial No. 128/1999, appellant Udayveer Singh was tried before the Sessions Judge, Bhind under Sections 302 and 307/34, IPC and under Section 27(1) of Arms Act and appellant Radheshyam was tried under Sections 302/34 and 307, IPC and Sections 27(1) and 29(b) of Arms Act. Appellant Udayveer has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine three years R.I. and under Section 27(1) of Arms Act for two years RI and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine six months further RI. Appellant Radheshyam has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34, IPC for life imprisonment and fine of Rs....
Jagdish Vs. Ashok Kumar Gureja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ906; 2007(4)MPHT93; 2007(4)MPLJ229
ORDERAbhay Gohil, J.1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for a direction that the respondent be prosecuted for perjury for filing false affidavit in the Court and for that necessary direction be issued. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in L.P.A. No. 1/1993, respondent No.1-Ashok Kumar Gureja was the appellant and on his behalf respondent No.2-Ashok Kumar Kushwah has filed an affidavit on 3.8.2000 that he came to know that the respondent Gyanchand has expired. He inquired through his Advocate and he came to know about this fact on 1.8.2000, when he went to the office of Raghuveer Singh, it was told that Gyanchand has died. Thereafter Raghuveer Singh wrote a letter to the appellant on his Gwalior Address but since he was residing in Delhi, he could not receive the letter. Thereafter respondent No.2-Ashok Kushwah filed an affidavit in support of his application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 IPC, in L.P.A. When the Division Bench was consid...
Rajendra Dattatray Bapat Vs. Nagar Palik Nigam and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT358
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. Heard.2. His grievance is that a private complaint which was filed by him before Human Rights Court, Dewas was ultimately returned to him by that Court with a direction to present the same before Competent Judicial magistrate and that Court being a Court of Sessions can only take cognizance of the offence after committal of the case by Judicial Magistrate. He submitted that no specific procedure has been prescribed in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short) for filing of a private complaint before Human Right Court. He has drawn attention of this Court towards Section 30 of the Act and submitted that for establishment of human rights for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights, Court of Sessions has been designated as Special Court and that is why he filed the complaint before that Court regarding violation of his human rights. He submitted that as no procedure has bee...
Jantantra Griha Nirman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT353
U.C. Maheshwari, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 30-10-2006 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Bhopalin Civil Original Suit No. 157-A/05 dismissing its suit by allowing the applications of respondent No. 4 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of using some 'Public Road' between the land of appellant bearing Survey Nos. 206/1/1 and 206/2 area 6.61 hecter and of respondent No. 3 bearing Survey Nos. 140, 204 and 205 and of respondent No. 4 bearing Survey Nos. 63 and 66 situated at Village Narela Shankari in Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. Subsequent to filing the suit, the respondent No. 4 on impleading it as defendant No. 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC contending that the subject matter of suit substantially and directly on the same issues has b...
Gopal Sharma and anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT299
S.L. Kochar, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants named above have challenged their conviction under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'), and sentence of RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional SI for six months passed in Special Case No. 4/2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, West Nirnar, Mandleshwar, on 13-11 -2002.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 27-9-2001 in the evening at 4.00 P.M. J.C. Shrivastava (P.W. 6), Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau (for short, hereinafter referred to 'Bureau'), Inspector R.K. Rajak (P.W. 7) and Sub-Inspector Girvarpuri (P.W. 5) jointly received a secret information from informant that the appellants named Gopal Sharma and Smt. Shyamubai wife of Karansingh were taking two kilograms of heroin illegally to Pune in a bus and they could be apprehended b...
Dr. V.K. JaIn Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT219; 2007(3)MPLJ576
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a Public Interest Litigation tiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner who claims to be a reputed Surgeon of Indore and who is also a Member of Professional Education Guardian Society, Madhya Pradesh. He has stated in the writ petition that he has come to know that respondent No. 4 has given admission to students who have secured even 40% marks in the Pre-Medical Test Examination, although the minimum bench mark prescribed for admission to MBBS course by the Medical Council of India is 50%.2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to enquire into the admissions given by the respondent No. 4 College during the academic session 2005/2006 and for a further direction to respondent No. 4 College to refund the money collected from the students during the admissions and to compensate the students who deserve admission on the basis of their merit as determined by the Pre-Medical Test, 2005 and 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›