Madhya Pradesh Court March 2008 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.
Sundariya Bai Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: AIR2008MP227; 2008(3)MPHT315
ORDER1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29-3-2001 passed by the Probate Court (Xlth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur) in MJC No. 73/99 granting the probate certificate to deceased respondent Smt. Girja Bai, present appellant has knocked the door of this Court by filing this appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short 'the Act').2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in narrow compass. An application under Section 276 of the Act was filed by deceased respondent Smt. Girja Bai before the Probate Court stating therein that she got married to Chhadami Lal Choudhary on 10-9-1972 and the marriage was solemnized in accordance with the customs, rite and usage as well as according to the traditions prevailing in the Choudhary Community to which she belongs. From the wedlock of Girja Bai and Chhadami LaL Choudhary, three children were born they are Ku. Janki Bai, Sohanlal and Ku. Asha. Further it has been stated in the application that earlier her husband...
Gaurav Nagar Grihanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. State of M.P. a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT64
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Shri A.K. Sethi, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Counsel for the appellant.2. Heard on admission.This appeal assails the order dated 12-9-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5167/2007 by which the Writ Petition of the petitioner has been summarily dismissed on the ground that it was not preceded by a notice of demand, to the respondents. Learned Senior Counsel submits that under the provisions of Section 30(5) of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (Adhiniyam for short), if the Director does not communicate his decision to the applicant within sixty days from the date of the receipt of his application, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant on the date immediately following the date of expiry of sixty days. Learned Senior Counsel urges that since it is necessary to append a copy of the sanction under Section 30 of the Adhiniyam, unless an order is passed to the effect that on account of the passage ...
Arshad Ahmed Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ742
S.L. Kochar, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment dated 7th December, 1994 rendered by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, West Nimar Barwani in Sessions Trial No. 73/91, thereby convicting the appellants under Section 307 I PC, and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for three months.2. This appeal was listed in weekly as well as daily cause lists, but none appeared for the appellant. On 15.10.07, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, the appeal was listed on 02.01.08. On this date also, none appeared, but the record shows that the appellant appeared in the office and marked his presence and also he was given the date for appearance as 28.04.08. On 07.02.08, 08.02.04, 14.02:08, 15.02.08, 22.02.08, 05.03.08 and 11.03.08, none had appeared for and on behalf of the appellant. The appellant is not present even today. Therefore, in view of the ...
Bhuprendra and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2479
S. Samvatsar, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants-accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/5/1999 delivered by the 2nd Additional Session Judge, Dabra District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 47/1998, whereby the Sessions Court has convicted the present appellants for commission of offence under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo further one year's rigorous imprisonment. The appellants are also convicted by the impugned judgment for commission of offence under Section 3(2)(4) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine they are directed to undergo further one year' R.I.2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2 Santo alias Satish died, hence his appeal stood abated.3. As per...
Subodh Sharma Vs. Satendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1027; 2008(2)MPHT361
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimant aggrieved by award dated 29-8-2003 passed in Claim Case No. 70/02 passed by IIIrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Dabra, District Gwalior. Claimant preferred the claim petition as against the respondent claiming compensation on account of personal injuries sustained in an accident dated 20-3-2001 caused by motorcycle (MP-07 K/0009) driven by respondent. For the treatment of injuries the claimant remained admitted for 10 days in the hospital at Dabra, consequently, he claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The claimant was doing the work of contractor, he has spent a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the treatment, his age was 42 years at the time of accident. The respondent in the reply contended that excessive compensation was claimed, simple injuries were caused, in order to avoid the harassment the guilt was admitted in criminal case, claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal has determined the c...
Mangi Lal and ors. Vs. Harmindar Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ508
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal, filed by the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 3.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khachrod in Claim Case No. 17 of 2000. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,25,000 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Narayan who died in a vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out and, if so, to what extent?2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kushwah, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. C.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company.3. It ...
Kishore and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT29
ORDERPrakash Shrivastava, J.1. The present public interest petition has been filed impugning the order dated 6-12-2007 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 6 under Section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam') whereby the Additional Commissioner has allowed the revision of the respondent No. 6 and set aside the order of removal passed against him under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam.2. Order dated 21-3-2007 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Sausar District Chhindwara removing respondent No. 6 from the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sawanga with immediate effect and declaring him disqualified for 6 years under Section 40 (2) of the Adhiniyam)3. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged by the respondent No. 6 before the Collector and the matter had travelled to the Additional Commissioner by way of revision under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam wh...
Shyamlal Meena Vs. Smt. Durgabai Meena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT527
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 26-7-07 passed by Additional District Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 60-A/05, whereby the application filed by the appellant for divorce was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and it was directed that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as permanent alimony, the present appeal has been filed.2. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that grievance of the appellant is that no direction can be issued by the learned Court below regarding payment of permanent alimony where the suit for divorce has been dismissed. Learned Counsel further submits that since in the present case the petition for divorce was dismissed, therefore, learned Court below committed jurisdictional error in holding the appellant liable for payment of permanent alimony @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. Learned Counsel further submits that as per proceedings initiated by the respondent for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.PC registe...
Bharti (Ku.) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT472
N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 25-10-83 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhabua in Civil Suit No. 3-B/1981, whereby the suit filed by the appellants for compensation was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellants who were minors filed a suit against the respondents for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 17-6-77 alleging that deceased Maltidevi Gidwani was the mother of the appellants and was working in the office of Animal Husbandry, Jhabua as Accountant. The salary of the deceased Maltidevi was Rs. 373/- per month. It was alleged that on 19-7-1976 Smt. Maltidevi Gidwani was hospitalized at District Hospital, Jhabua where she delivered a son Laxman. It was alleged that after the delivery Maltidevi was pressurized by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for T.T. operation and upon her denying the deceased and her husband were threatened that the deceased and her husband shall be terminated from their job an...
Nandlal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2664; 2008(3)MPHT50; 2007(1)MPLJ84
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. A short yet a significant question has been raised in this revision preferred against the order dated 13-3-2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T. No. 237/1996. It may be formulated as under:whether the Court of Session has any discretion in the matter of payment, on the part of the Government,' of the expenses of defence witnesses.2. The petitioners stand prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 302 and 201 of the IPC allegedly committed at Nagpur (Maharashtra). However, by virtue of order dated 15-7-1996 passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 1240/96, the case was transferred for trial to the Court of Session at Chhindwara (M.P.). In defence, the petitioners proposed to examine as many as 9 witnesses including (i) Dr. R.K. Wright, a resident of Turteltown, USA, (ii) Dr. Anil Agrawal, Professor, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi and (iii) Mr. P.K. Satyanathan, Govt. Pleader, Nagpur. However, the learned Trial Judge reje...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »