Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Gajari Bai (Dead) Through L.Rs. Kaluram and ors. Vs. Kashinath and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT130
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 7-8-1999 passed by District Judge, Guna, in Civil Suit No. 4-A/99, whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff.2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and Smt. Gajari Bai-defendant No. 1 were co-owners of an area of 7.692 hectares of Survey Number 857, situated at Tehsil and District Guna. They jointly purchased it vide registered sale deed 17-3-1964. On 1-3-68, they executed a registered gift deed on the basis of agreement dated 27-9-66 for an area of 7 Bigha to Shastri Mangilal Tripathi for running a Sanskrit Education Centre and possession was delivered to him. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 mutually partitioned the diverted area of Survey No. 857, i.e., 1.00 lac sq. ft. (1.254 hectares) and as per partition deed dated 30-4-78 jointly, developed a colony in the name of Kashinath Bhargava Colony...
State Bank of India Vs. Siddharth Hotel and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT336
A.P. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 4-10-93 and 14-10-93 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, in Original Civil Suit No. 3-B/87 by which money decree of Rs. 72,287.06 was ordered against the respondents to the plaintiff. It is further directed that the respondents shall also pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that on 22-11-86, the plaintiff-appellant instituted a civil suit against the defendants-respondents for recovery of Rs. 72,287.06 on account of the loan obtained by it and the interest accrued thereon. The loan received by the defendants-respondents was agreed at the interest of 15% per annum of bank rate and the plaintiff executed documents to that effect with the defendants as well. The agreement ex...
Gorlibai Vs. Kailash and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2295
N.K. Mody, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1652 of 2006 as both the appeals arise out of one award dated 17.2.2006 passed by the First Additional M.A.C.T., Khargone in Claim Case No. 6 of 2005 whereby the claim petition filed by appellant was allowed and a sum of Rs. 3,26,300 has been awarded.2. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1677 of 2006 the appellant is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded and is also aggrieved by the direction of learned Tribunal whereby respondent No. 3 has been exonerated. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1652 of 2006 appellants are the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The grievance of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is also that the respondent No. 3 has wrongly been exonerated and the amount awarded is on the higher side.3. Short facts of the case are that the appellant Gorlibai filed a claim petition alleging that on 30.1.2004 appellant was travelling in Commander jeep at about 3.45 p.m., which was being driven by respondent No. 1...
Sunita Vs. Ali Asgar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2010ACJ126
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 31.3.2006 passed by Additional M.A.C.T., Jobat in Claim Case No. 155 of 2004, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries was allowed and a sum of Rs. 79,500 was awarded and respondent No. 3 was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant, who is a girl aged 14 years at the time of accident filed a claim petition alleging that on 20.10.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. when appellant was going to collect the scholarship with her friends at that time a bus bearing registration No. GJ 17-T 1897, owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with respondent No. 3 dashed the appellant, with the result appellant sustained grievous injuries at the ankle point of her left leg and fell down. It was alleged that appellant was hospitalised, where the appellant was operated. Perma...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2010ACJ111
N.K. Mody, J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 3374, 3375, 3378, 3379 and 3380 of 2007 as all the appeals are arising out of one award dated 31.7.2007 passed by First M.A.C.T., Dewas in Claim Case Nos. 115, 112, 114, 111 and 110 of 2007 and also arising out of one accident.2. The short facts of the case are that in a motor accident which took place on 26.1.1998, Omprakash Choudhary, Dilip, Kailash s/o Baburao and Kailash s/o Shivnarayan died and Kamal and Mahesh sustained injuries. The claimants Kamal and Mahesh and legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petitions. Since the offending vehicle was a truck bearing registration No. MP 13-E 1211, therefore, learned Tribunal passed the award against respondent No. 2 and exonerated the appellant insurance company.3. Being aggrieved by the direction of exoneration of appellant M.A. Nos. 1047, 1016, 1017, 1035, 1045 and 1055 of 1999 were filed before this Court. Vide order dated 22.11.2005, all the appea...
M.P. Power Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Lanco Amarkantak Power Pvt. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: AIR2008MP314
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. Heard the learned respective counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection raised by respondent No. 1 regarding the maintainability of writ petition as well as on I. A. No. 3511/2008 which is an application for vacating of interim ex parte stay order dated 31-3-2008.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 1 is an electricity generating limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has set up a coal based thermal power station at village Pathadi, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, comprising of one generating unit which has an installed capacity of 300 MW. Respondent No. 1 is, however, yet to start the generation of electricity. Respondent No. 2 is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act and has been established with an objective to carry out the business of purchase and sale of all forms of electric power to the State Electricity Boards and other organizations. Madhya Pradesh State Electri...
Amarsingh Vs. Sheikh Burhan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ492
N.K. Mody, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 5.4.2004 passed by the learned Member, M.A.C.T., District Shajapur in Claim Case No. 19 of 2003 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 1,80,500 with interest to the appellant. According to appellant, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has 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 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 compensation, etc. It is for the reasons that first...
Navkant Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT492
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-11-2001 passed by learned Special Judge, Gwalior in Special Case No. 2/2001 convicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year and fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default further Rigorous Imprisonment of six months on first count and Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year with a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default further Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months, on second count with a further stipulations that both the sentences shall run concurrently, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Dashrath Singh Rawat (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was having an electric connection provided by Madhya Pradesh Electrici...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›