Madhya Pradesh Court March 2015 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.
Badri Vishal and Another Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2015
1. This Appeal is preferred by the accused/appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.11.97 passed by the First ADJ, Rewa in S.T.No.106/96. By the impugned judgment, the trial judge convicted the appellants for commission of offence under section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC with direction to undergo for RI 3 years in the first count while RI seven years in the last count. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that appellant No.2 Radheshyam married with the deceased Munni Bai. She died on 19.3.96. Her body was found in the Well which was nearby to the house of the appellants. After information of death, the body of the deceased was taken-out from the well which was floating. A marg was registered at PS Suhagi. On the basis of the statement of the family members of the deceased, the police came to know that accused persons had demanded a Scooter and TV from the parents of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was performed three years before. Police conducted the investigatio...
M.P. Oil Extraction Limited Vs. State Trading Corporation of India and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.11.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.41-A/2001. 2. On 07.01.1998, the appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent no.2 as Contract No. TIA 180047 for supply of Indian Toasted Soyabean Extraction FAQ of about 2100/2200 MTS at the Seller s option for delivery in January 1998. On 09.01.1998, the aforesaid Contract was amended and it was converted into a Tripartite Agreement. In this contract, the appellant was relegated as the Supplier and the respondent no.2 was relegated as the Seller. A copy of the addendum has been filed as (Annexure-A-3) along with the appeal of memo. It is mentioned in the addendum that this addendum forms an integral part of the above Contract, all other terms and conditions remain unchanged. 3. On 10.01.1998, the appellant raised an invoice on the respondent No.1 under Contract No.TIA 180047 for goods supplied to it valued at Rs. 1,71,58,008/-. The respondent No.1 made a payment of Rs.1,52...
Suresh Yadav and Others Vs. Virendra Kumar Yadav and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
1. This order will govern the disposal of Civil Revision No.240/2010 and Civil Revision No.242/2010. For the purposes of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Revision No.200/2010. Since the facts of these three Civil Suits are almost similar and on the common grounds, the applications made by the applicant under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) were rejected by the trial Court, the controversy being the same, by this common order all the Civil Revisions are being disposed of. 2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a suit claiming inter alia the reliefs to the effect of declaration of their title on the suit land and declaration that the agreement dated 7.7.1997 is null and void and the agreement executed by the defendant No.1/applicant on 20.6.2000, was not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1/applicant mainly on the ground that earlier a suit was filed by one Amar Singh, so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›