Madhya Pradesh Court August 2009 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.
Mithla Kachchi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT94
ORDERIndrani Datta, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the case diary.3. This is 12th bail application under Section 439 of Cr.PC filed by the applicant for grant of bail.4. His first application (M.Cr.C. No. 5942/06), was dismissed on 26-2-07 as withdrawn. Second application (M.Cr.C. No. 1547/07) was dismissed on 19-4-07 on merits. Third and Fourth applications (M.Cr.C. Nos. 3440/07 and 4146/07) were dismissed on 3-7-07 and 3-8-07 on the ground that there is no change in circumstance. Fifth application (M.Cr.C. No. 6339/07) was dismissed on 2-11-07. Sixth application (M.Cr.C. No. 7198/07) was dismissed on 4-1-08 as withdrawn. Seventh application (M.Cr.C. No. 537/08) was filed on the ground of parity with co-accused Raj Kumar Yadav which also met with dismissal on 25-1-08. Eighth application (M.Cr.C. No. 1315/08) was dismissed on 18-3-08 as withdrawn. Ninth application (M.Cr.C. No. 2781/08) was also dismissed on 9-5-08. Tenth application (M.Cr.C. No. 5330/08) was dismissed on 14-8-09 on merit. Elev...
Kamal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT293
K.S. Chauhan, J.1. Appellant Rai Singh has expired during the pendency of this appeal hence appeal against him has been abetted. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 21.04.1999 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No. 146/98, whereby the appellant Kamal Singh has been convicted under Sections 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-in default of payment of fine R.I. for 6 months, R.I. for 6 months and R.I. for 3 months respectively with the direction to run the sentences concurrently. 3. Prosecution case in short is that Sunar Singh r/o Village Kadrabad lodged report at Police Outpost Shyampur on 13.06.1998 at 10:30 a.m. to the effect that at the time of incident the appellants came armed with farsi at his house and by abusing him said that his cattle (buffalo) had damaged th...
Narmada Parwati Ganga College and Etc. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP250
Dipak Misra, J.1. Regard being had to the similitude of grievance and the controversy raised, the writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in W.P. No. 4895/09 are exposited herein.2. The petitioner, Narmada Parwati Ganga College, Bhopal, was issued a letter by the Western Regional Committee of the National Council of Teachers Education (for short, 'the WRC') on 15/18-12-2006 15/18-12-2006 , Annexure-P/3, whereby the institution was intimated that it was found fit for grant of conditional recognition of D. Ed. Course with the intake capacity of 50 students. Thereafter, the WRC issued a letter on 23-8-2007 intimating the M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal that there is no need for renewal of the recognition as it would remain in force unless it is cancelled by the NCTE. The said letter has been brought on record as Annexure-P/4.3. As pleaded, the respondent No. 2, Board of Secondary Education,...
Mayadevi Kukreja (Smt.) Vs. Meera Agrawal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: AIR2010MP27; 2009(5)MPHT343
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Briefly stated facts relevant for the purposes of this writ petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Suit is being opposed by the defendants. Alter raising issues, learned Trial Judge proceeded with recording of evidence. Plaintiff/petitioner in her evidence submitted affidavits containing chief examination of herself as well as of few of witnesses. Since Exh. P-3 marked in plaintiff's chief examination was not available, cross-examination on the plaintiff as well as her witnesses could not be conducted.2. On 25-4-09, learned Trial Judge directed the plaintiff to make available Exh. P-3 in original for cross-examination on the next date of hearing on 27-6-09. However, on 25-4-09 itself an affidavit containing chief examination of one Parasram Kukreja as plaintiff's additional witness was submitted which was not accepted by the Trial Court on the ground that three opportunities for evidence we...
Rajesh Maheshwari Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR58(MP)
Dipak Misra, J.1. The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), involves the following substantial question of law:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has committed illegality by failing to consider all material facts and evidence brought on record and further failed to record the finding on all the issues before it and has erroneously remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) though it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to decide the matter being the final authority of facts.2. The facts which are essential to be stated are that for the assessment year 1998-99, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was served by affixture on the last date of the period of limitation, i.e., on March 31, 2005. In pursuance of the notice, the appellant filed its regular return before the Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1...
Babulal S/O Anandilalji JaIn Vs. Gafur S/O Ghisaji Ajmeri and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT307
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-10-02 passed by Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Cr. A. No. 180/02 whereby the judgment dated 4-9-02 passed by CJM, Mandsaur in Criminal Case No. 997/99, whereby the respondent No. 1 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'NI Act') and was sentence to undergo for a period of six months' RI with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- was set aside, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a complaint on 22-3-99 alleging that the respondent No. 1 purchased motor pipe and other fitting materials from the appellant on 21-7-98 of which the bill was issued by the appellant. It was alleged that the bill was duly signed by respondent No. 1 and a cheque dated 1-9-98 of District Co-operative Central Bank, Mandsaur was issued by the respondent No. 1. It was alleged that appellant submitted the cheque through its banker State ...
Taj Mohammad and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT184
R.C. Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30-9-1994 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 299/1992 whereby each one of the appellants has been convicted under Sections 304 Part 11/304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to suffer RI for six months.2. For the sake of convenience, appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely Taj Mohammad, Lal Mohammad and Sharafat Khan shall hereinafter be referred to as 'AY, 'A2' and 'A3' respectively.3. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR (Exh. P-1), may be slated thus:(i) On 10-5-1992 at 5 p.m., a goat belonging to Nawab Khan (since deceased) entered into the vegetable field of A2 located in Village Malkhedi. As A2 was driving the goat out of the field, Nawab Khan came there along with his brother Ismail Khan (P.W. 3) and nephew Iliyas Khan (P.W. 1) and tried to persuade him and his brothers, the other appel...
Hariram and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT312
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17-10-2002 passed by ASJ, Barwah, District West Nimar in S.T. No. 411/2001, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC by sentencing them to undergo five years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each respectively, the present appeal has been filed.2. In short the case of prosecution was that on 6-9-2001 complainant/Bhairam alongwith his brother Shriram and their wives Shantibai and Narmadibai were pouring water in their field, at that time at about 1.00 p.m. appellant/Hariram was fixing the motor from the river. It was alleged that complainant/Bhairam asked the appellant/Hariram not to fit the motor, upon which appellant/Hariram abused the complainant in a filthily language and also assaulted by Gupti (a sharp edged weapon). Further case of the prosecution was that at that time appellant No. 2/Bhaiyalal came on sp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›