Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the impugned judgment dated 10.8.1996 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. Nos. 2/93 and 110/2000 by which appellant Brijesh has been convicted under Sections 148 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.200/- and RI for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-respectively, with default stipulations and appellants Rajesh Baghel, Jivan Singh, Rakesh and Rajesh S/o Nandlal have been convicted under Sections 147 and 324/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.100/- and RI for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulations.2. The aforesaid appeals arose out of the same judgment and order therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Prosecution case in short is that on 1.8.1992 at about 4.00 p.m., when complainant Preetam Singh (PW1) was standing in front of the house of his uncle Halke, accused Br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31/10/1994 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 45-B/1984, appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Facts of the case in short are that respondent No.1 had availed loan of Rs.7,000/- on 11.5.1981, Rs.2,500/- on 13.5.1981 and Rs.500/- on 19.5.1981 and he had also availed the entire loan of Rs.10,000/- in his account and for which he had executed written receipts. It is further pleaded that he made part payments of Rs.500/- on 11.6.1981, Rs.702/- on 11.7.1981 and Rs.1,000/- on 10.9.1981, thereafter he failed to pay any further amount towards principal and interest and committed default in payment of the dues of plaintiff. Despite repeated demand he did not pay the remaining amount. Ultimately, the plaintiff sent a notice on 12.1.1984 to all respondents/defendants. But they have failed to pay the remaining amount, therefore, after adjusting the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- This application has been filed interalia contending that in view of the setting aside of the award passed by the Labour Court and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3252/2000, on 4.4.2005, the amount deposited by virtue of the provisions of Section 17- B, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), be refunded back to the applicant.2- Non-applicant No.1 Ms. Mamta Shrivastava was working in the applicant's establishment. Her services were terminated and, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised before the competent authority. Conciliation having failed matter was referred to the Labour Court, Rewa wherein it was registered as Case No.3/ID Act (Ref)/99 and by an award dated 20.10.1999, respondent/non-applicant No.1 Ms. Mamta Shrivastava was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court on 20.10.1999, Writ Petition No.3252/2000 was filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- Challenging the order-dated 8.11.2005 Annexure P/1, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Challenge is also made to the order of punishment dated 20.7.2001 Annexure P/2, by which penalty of compulsory retirement, confirmation of the period of suspension and recovery of Rs.1,19,796=50 has been ordered against the petitioner.2- Records indicate that petitioner was holding the post of Accountant in the office of Divisional Ayurveda Officer, Rewa. On 4.7.1989, while working as Accountant, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, one Shri Ram Sharan Shrivastava, is alleged to have directed the petitioner and one cashier Shri Rampal Pandey, to go to the bank and withdraw a sum of Rs.2,39,593=00. Petitioner is said to have gone to the Bank and while returning from the Bank it seems that the aforesaid amount was looted by certain unsocial elem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 25th July, 2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Sessions Trial No. 161/2002, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2) In short, prosecution case is that Bharti, the deceased was married to Kanahiya, the son of appellant no.1 Kamla Bai on 4.5.2001. Appellant No.2 Samadhan is younger brother of Kanahiya. On 11.7.2002, at about 3 P.M., deceased suffered burn injuries. She was carried to hospital, where during treatment on 12.7.2002, she expired. It is alleged that appellants and two accused persons namely Shanta Bai and Pawan used to harass her by making demand of cash and ornaments in dowry and on not meeting the demand, subjected her to cruelty. When deceased was taken to hospital, she was found to have suffered 100% bur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 8.10.09 (Annexure P-7) passed by National Council for Teachers Education/respondent no.1, whereby the order dated 11.8.09 (Annexure P-6) rejecting the application of the petitioner-society for grant of recognition to conduct B.Ed. Course, passed by Western Regional Committee, NCTE/respondent no.2 has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner-society under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 has been rejected.2. The petitioner is a registered society running a college in the name of Adarsh Rajabhoj College of Education, Bharat Bharti, Jamthi, Betul imparting education for D.Ed. Course. The petitioner-society filed an application before Western Regional Committee of N.C.T.E./respondent no.2 (in short 'WRC') under Section 14/15 of NCTE Act (in short 'the Act') on 23.10.08 for grant of recognition to its institution to run B.Ed. course, claiming all the eligibility criteria and qualification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This plaintiffs' writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25-11-2010 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Harda, in Civil Suit No. 48-A/2010; whereby, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioners seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected. The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing khasra No. 134/1, area 44.312 hectares, situated in villae Bichhapur Halka No. 11/17. During the pendency of said suit and at the stage when the petitioners have succeeded in avoiding to record evidence on commission for almost one year, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint by incorporating the facts of pre-trial stage. The trial Court rejected the application by the impugned order on the ground of delay and that there was no plausible explanation by the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th August, 2001 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.292/1999 convicting appellant No.1 Jagdish under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (on two counts) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.3000/- on each count, respectively. Appellant No.2 Kunal Tiwari has been convicted under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (on two counts) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.3000/- on each count, respectively. Sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Facts in nutshell are that complainant Parvez, accused Kunal and Jagdish are neighbors. They lived in Ibrahimganj, Bhopal. In the noon of 16.6.1999 there had been a quarrel between Manzoor, the elder brother of the father of complainant Parvez on one side and father and brothers of accused Jagdish on the other side on a dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Since the aforesaid revisions and the appeal arise out of common judgment, this judgment shall govern the disposal of all the above revisions and appeal.2. Appellant Subhash has filed Criminal Appeal No.1188/1995 against the judgment dated 26.8.1995, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, district Satna, in Sessions Trial No.71/1995, convicting him under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.3. Complainant R.K. Ragrawal has filed Criminal Revision No.821/1995 against the same impugned judgment whereby accused Smt. Meena, Ramadhar, Premchandra and Smt. Droupadi have been acquitted. He has also filed Criminal Revision No.820/1995 against accused/respondent Subhash for enhancement of his sentence.4. In brief, the prosecution case is that Meena, the deceased, was married t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The Sessions Judge, Raisen passed the impugned judgment dated 7.8.1995 in S.T. No. 3/90 whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for contravention of Section 3(3) of the M.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulations.2. Prosecution case in short is that on 8.6.1990 Head Constable, Rajesh Singh (PW6), received an information that sugar of Government Fare Price Shop, which was issued to co-accused Leeladhar for distribution to the public was illegally kept in the house of appellant Rajesh Vishwakarma. Rajesh Singh (PW6) after having recorded Rojnamch Sanha, reached to the house of appellant Rajesh Vishwakarma and found five bags of sugar in his house, same was seized vide Ex.P/8 in presence of Panch Witnesses. The said sugar was weighed and found four quintal and thirty eight kilograms. Panchnama Ex.P/6 was prepared in this regard. Thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!