Madhya Pradesh Court February 2009 Judgments
Manish Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2115; 2009(2)MPHT463
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-8-2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Guna in Special Case No. 201/2001 convicting appellant under Section 354, IPC as well as under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') and thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment, appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on the date of incident prosecutrix along with her Nanad (sister-in-law) went to evacuate in the field where appellant also arrived and by catching the hand asked her to accompany him to Jhore (a place in the field). It is said that when prosecutrix snatched her hand, appellant grappled and pressed her breast. It is also stated that when prosecutrix screamed, appellant fled from the place of occurrence and he was...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Bai Vs. Durga Prasad (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP218
U.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This Appeal is directed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3-2-1993 passed by the VIII Addl. District Judge to District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/91 dismissing her suit by reversing the Judgment and decree dated 15-2-1991 passed by XII Civil Judge Class-II Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No. 119-A/89 whereby her suit for declaration was decreed against the principal defendant the predecessor of the respondents.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant herein filed a suit of declaration against the principal defendant Durga Prasad, the predecessor of the respondents, declaring him to be in possession as an owner of House No. 112 New No. 148, situated at Bhantaliya Ward, Jabalpur described in the plaint. As per averments of the plaint, initially, one Nanhelal (the predecessor in title of the appellant) being owner of the disputed house was in possession of it. He under need of some...
Tag this Judgment!Bridge and Roof Infrastructures Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT141
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of W.P. No. 4227/2006. Bridge and Roof Infrastructures v. Union of India and Ors. and W.P. No. 7881/2007, Bridge and Roof Infrastructures v. Union of India and Ors.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the question in dispute can be summarized in the nutshell to say that whether the recovery notices issued by the respondent in one of the cases whether in relation to quantified damages or unquantified damages are valid and are in accordance with law or not and whether cancellation of the contract was valid.3. Undisputedly the petitioner had entered into certain agreements with the respondents for repair of certain railway bridges. It appears that after sometime the petitioner, as alleged by the respondents abandoned the work and refused to restart the work or take up the work again. Taking into consideration the alleged conduct of the petitioner/contractor the respondents cancelled the contract, engaged some debitable agency and proceeded to get t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamla Bai Vs. Madanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4176
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. With consent, the matter is finally heard.2. This is an application, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal recorded on 2-11-2007 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 1845/2005 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. In that case, cognizance of the offence was taken upon complaint made against the respondent by applicant-complainant. It contained the following allegations:On 31-3-2004, the respondent borrowed an amount of Rs. 60,000/- from the applicant and, for repayment thereof, issued the cheque in question in her favour. However, upon the requests made by the respondent, who is none other than her cousin, the applicant permitted him to revalidate the cheque for a further period of six months and, accordingly, date of the cheque was changed from 31-3-2004 to 21-9-2004. On a subsequent occasion also, acceding to a ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3275; 2009(3)MPHT116
R.C. Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26-9-1995 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 124/1988, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 316 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further suffer SI for 1 year.2. The prosecution case, in short, may be stated as under:(i) Ramwati (who also died subsequently) was the wife of Ramdas (P.W. 5) and daughter-in-law of the first informant Kunware (P.W. 4), who are residents of Village Tamra. At the relevant point of time, she was carrying a pregnancy of nearly 6 months.(ii) On 10-11-1986 at about 8 a.m., when she had gone along with Kunne (P.W. 7), Manwati (P.W. 8), Baby (P.W. 9), Kammu (P.W. 11) and Momina picking Chana ki Bhaji (leaves of gram plants) to the field belonging to Rajendra Prasad, father of the appellant and situated nearly Village Jarha, the appellant came there and assaulted Ramwati with a lathi an...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnikant and ors. Vs. V.K. Yati and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT468
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21-2-2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 366/03 whereby the judgment dated 29-8-2003 passed by CJM, Indore in Criminal Case No. 3156/89, whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 7(ii) read with Section 16(1 -A)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'an Act') and was sentenced for a period of one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- was maintained, the present petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioners were prosecuted by filing a complaint by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Act, wherein it was alleged that respondent No. 1 V.K. Yati is the Food Inspector, whose jurisdiction is Indore and Ujjain District. It was alleged that on 4-4-1989 shop of petitioner No. 1 was inspected by him. At the time of inspection it was found that petitioner No. 1 is having a stock of baby food, toffee and biscuit et...
Tag this Judgment!Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress and anr. Vs. South Eastern Coalfie ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ46MP
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. Initially the challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was the action of respondent, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, of stopping the Structural meetings under the Industrial Relations Systems with the petitioner, a Trade Union registered under Trade Unions Act, 1926, at unit sub area and Company Head Quarter level. The petitioners also challenge the order/circular dated July 14, 2007 issued by General Manager (IR/legal) of the respondent Coalfields Ltd., whereof the check-off facility of the petitioners Union have been withdrawn. However, at the time of hearing the petitioners have confined their challenge to the issue of withdrawal of check-off facility.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. Initially it was the Chhatisgarh Colliery Workers Federation, Manendragarh and thereafter underwent series of changes, it is n...
Tag this Judgment!Great Galleon Limited and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT356
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Questioning the defensibility and the legal substantiality of the order dated 15-11-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4641/06, the present writ appeal was filed with a prayer to set aside the same. That apart, it was also mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that the writ appeal has been filed to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for consideration under Rule 12, Chapter I of the M.P. High Court Rules & Orders in respect of the following questions:(1) Whether in view of the definition of 'manufacture' in Section 2 (14) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1950 and the license issued to manufacturer in Form CS-1 for supply of country liquor in sealed bottles is to be awarded only to the distilleries who are producers of rectified spirit under the provisions of M.P. Country Spirit Rules, 1995 and the distillers are given the license to manufacture country spirit by colouring and flavouring at the manufacturing warehouse and the manufacturing warehouse has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Kulsum Begum Vs. Kohinoor Winding Factory and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ687MP
Arun Mishra and S. Shrivastava, JJ.1. Heard.The Labour Court vide award dated May 12, 2004 has held that the workman Kulsum Begum's services were wrongly terminated. Reinstatement was directed along with back-wages. However, fact remains that with respect to age of the workman no determination was made by the Labour Court on which date she would attain the age of. superannuation. The award attained finality. For implementation of the award proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were filed by the workman claiming the salary as per the award w.e.f. January 1,2000 to June 2004. In the reply filed by the employer the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was submitted that the workman was employed in 1966, at that time her age was 20 years, she was appointed as Machine Operator. She had served for a period of 3 years, thereafter left the work and was re-employed in the year 1995.2. The Labour Court vide order (P/l) date J...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT302
Rakesh Saksena, J.1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26-8-2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadaun District Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 121/99 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that appellant/accused was married to Panchshila (deceased) about 8-10 years prior to the incident. She was residing with the accused in Village Khamariya, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Chhapara. She was working as a health worker in Village Khamariya. On 30-4-1999, at about 5.30 p.m., when she returned from Chhapara, accused was sleeping. When he woke up, he got enraged and asked her as to why she had gone to Chhapara. He told her that she had gone to the house of Vijay Thakur and had indulged in promiscuity. He started assaulting and abusing her. Her sister Indrakala was also present there. When deceased went in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »