Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Laxmi Narayan and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT478
A.K. Saxena, J.1. This judgment shall dispose off Criminal Appeal Nos. 961/05, 967/05, 968/05, 1062/05, 1074/05 and 1214/05, as these appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 16-4-2005 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 124/99 whereby the appellants Laxmi Narayan, Mangilal and Vijay Chourasiya have been convicted under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC, the appellant Magvendra has been convicted under Section 120-B of IPC, the appellant Mohan Singh has been convicted under Section 489-C of IPC, the appellants Manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal have been convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC and they have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of different period, as per Paragraph 85 of the judgment.2. The prosecution story in short is that Shiv Darshan Ram (P.W. 1) withdrew the amount of Rs. 11,000/- on 21-4-1999 from Punjab National Bank, Sehore Bra...
Gagan Gases Limited and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: (2009)21VST365(MP)
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. The petitioner-company is carrying on the business of LPG bottling plant. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh has issued a notification dated October 6, 1994, in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 whereby a power to grant exemption to the dealers, up to 250 per cent of the capital investment in fixed assets for a period of nine years from the commencement of commercial production, has been provided. The petitioner-company applied for and was granted the requisite exemption as per exemption certificate dated June 1, 1999. The capital investment made by the petitioner-company in fixed assets was taken as Rs. 147.47 lacs and exemption was granted for a period from March 7,1995 till March 6, 2004.2. The petitioner-company has claimed that it had made some subsequent investments to the extent of Rs. 3,36,45,383 and therefore, under the notification in question, it was entitled to a further exemption of 250 per cen...
Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT144
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal, challenging his conviction under Section 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentence of R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) and in default of payment of fine appellant was further sentenced to undergo one year additional R.I., passed by learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Mandsaur, District Mandsaur in Special S.T. No. 27/2005, judgment dated 28-2-2007.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute seizure of 2.500 Kg. Opium from the possession of the appellant but he has submitted that learned Trial Court has not pointed out in the impugned judgment specifically whether the appellant is convicted for commercial quantity or non-commercial quantity because in commercial quantity the minimum jail sentence prescribed is 10 years and minimum fine prescribed is Rs. 1,00,000/- whereas for non-commercial quantity the sentence may extend upto ...
Ramesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Kannod
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT139
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/- on each count and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for three months on each count passed by the learned Special Judge, Dewas in Special Case No. 02/2003 by judgment dated 5-7-2003.2. According to the prosecution case on 28-2-2002, in Village Siroliya Bujurg in the evening the appellant took the prosecutrix aged 8 to 9 years for purchasing some thing for her from the shop and instead of taking to the shop, he took her inside the forest. Appellant threatened the prosecutrix at the point of knife for lying down on the ground and thereafter, removed his clothes and sat on her body. Prosecutrix started weeping upon which the appellant got up and went away. While weeping the prosecutrix returned back to her house and disclosed about the incident to her m...
Om Prakash Lashkari Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT18
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Being aggrieved of his supersession and promotion of his juniors including the third respondent from the post of Lower Division Clerk to the post of Upper Division Clerk vide order dated 21-7-94 (Annexure A-4), the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 546/96 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 11-2-97 (Annexure A-12) directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal afresh if aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his representation.2. Pursuant to the decisions of the Tribunal the respondents considered the petitioner's representation against his supersession and promotion of his juniors including the third respondent and rejected the same vide order dated 17-5-97 (Annexure A-15). Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 637/97. On abolition ...
Smt. Vandhana Gupta Vs. Rajesh Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT72
Indrani Datta, J.1. Appellant/wife has filed this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2005 passed by the Family Court, Gwalior in H.M.A. No. 39-A/03 by which respondent's petition for divorce was allowed and petition filed by the appellant/wife for restitution of conjugal rights, which was registered as H.M.A. No. 373-A/03, has been dismissed.2. Admitted facts of the case are that marriage between the appellant and respondent has been solemnized by Hindu traditions on 4-11-1998 in Gwalior.3. Brief facts of the case are that in Case No. 39-A/03 filed by the respondent/husband it is stated that after the marriage appellant's behaviour was not cooperative with the family members of the respondent. She misbehaved with respondent and his mother. She was not cooperative in household works. Appellant went to her parental house from time to time without consent of the respondent and on 18-4-1999 she went to her pare...
Ganesh Prasad Madan Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT339
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure P-l dated 24-4-2008 passed in Revision No. 581/2007,2. The petitioner is a bus operator. He is owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. M-P.-04/HB-9041 which is a passenger bus. The State Government vide gazette notification dated 11-2-1991 published a scheme No. 82 under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1939'). By the aforesaid scheme private operators have been permitted to ply their vehicles on certain routes including Bhopal & Obedullaganj.3. The petitioner applied for grant of regular permit for feeder service in accordance with the aforesaid scheme from Obedullaganj to Jawahar Chowk, Bhopal. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority vide order dated 2-1-2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was registered as Appeal No. 51/2007. The Appell...
Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya and anr. Vs. Rajeshwar Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT200
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.1. During course of hearing on I.A. No. 9190/2007, which is an application for condonation of delay, a question crept in about the scope of the explanation appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The provisions as contained in Section 2 of the Act are reproduced as under:Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction:- (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench Comprising of two Judges of the same High Court:Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.(2) An appeal under Sub-section (1) shall be filed w...
Anu Stone Crusher and Etc. Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2008MP244; 2009(1)MPHT151
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 5768/2008 (Anu Stone Crusher v. Bank of India and Ors.) will also govern the disposal of Wrti Petition No. 5770/2008 (Bajaj Stone Cruslfer v. Bank of India and Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 5781/2008 (Saroj Stone Crusher v. Bank of India and Ors.). Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, they were heard together.2. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of possession notices dated 12-4-2008, Annexure P4 and 21-4-2008, Annexure P5, issued by the authorised officer of Bank of India (respondent No. 2) under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act').3. Briefly stated the facts having rise to these petitions are that the petitioners are proprietorship firms and they own a stone crusher each. The petitioners for their business took financial assistance of huge amount from the respondent-Bank, and mortgaged ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambabu Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ523
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of above-mentioned appeals, as the same are arising out of common award dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Fourth Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case Nos. 32 and 33 of 2004 respectively. These appeals are preferred by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the finding of negligence as well as quantum after taking permission to contest the case.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2003 deceased Vinod Singh was driving the motor cycle bearing registration No. MP 30-B 3408, which was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. while other deceased Vijaykant was traveling as a pillion rider on the said motor cycle. When they were travelling on the said motor cycle, a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP 30-M 4490, which was insured with present appellant, owned by respondent Rambabu Singh and was driven by respondent Indravir Singh parked on the road. At about 10 in the night the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »