Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The appellant, registered owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short the Act) being aggrieved by the award dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Addl.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Tract) Umaria in Claim Case No.75/09 whereby exonerating the respondent No.1/insurer, the claim of the respondent No.2 with respect of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded against the appellant for the sum of Rs.,105,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 7% P.A from the date of the award.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 21.8.04 at about 5 O' Clock in the evening when the respondent No.2, after answering the call of nature, was returning to his home in village Akhrad, on the way he was dashed by the offending Jeep bearing registration No. MP 54-D-177 driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent manner, resultantly, he sustained various injuries on his p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur passed the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2005 in S.T. No. 640/02 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months.2. Being aggrieved the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.3. The prosecution case in short is that marriage of deceased Sarita and appellant was solemnized just before 3 years of the incident. It is also alleged that deceased Sarita was ill treated by appellant and other co-accused(acquitted). Deceased Sarita narrated the fact of demand of dowry to her father Motiram(P.W.1), mother Kaushalya bai(P.W.4) and niece Julie(P.W.9).4. It is also alleged that appellant directly made demand of refrigerator, bed, scooter and colour TV from Motiram(P.W.1). It is also alleged that due to the cruelty Sarita ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- The order being passed today shall govern disposal of Writ Petition Numbers: 13483/2008, 12597/2008, 12775/2008, 12781/2008, 13020/2008, 13749/2008, 13757/2008, 14292/2008, 14293/2008, 304/2009, 562/2009, 13893/2009, 13894/2009, 13895/2009 and 704/2010 also.2- Petitioners, who are working as daily wage employees in Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as 'RDVV'), have filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondent University in regularizing the individuals, who are arrayed as private respondents in all these petitions. It is the case of the petitioners that the process of regularization initiated by the University is illegal, therefore, they have sought for cancellation of the entire process of regularization. 3- While hearing all these cases, on 12.8.2010, this Court found that serious disputed questions of fact with regard to the process initiated for regularization is involved in the matter and, therefore, a detailed order was passed by this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Office has reported that this appeal is barred by limitation of 154 days after deducting statutory period of limitation of 45 days in filing writ appeal. In the application, it is submitted by the appellants that without impleading the appellants in W.P.6571/2010, directions were sought from the Single Bench. The appellant no.1 is the owner of the shop and appellant no.2 is the excise contractor. While both the appellants are directly affected by the impugned order, it is further stated that the appellants were not having knowledge of the aforesaid order and when the appellants came to know that the order has been passed by this Court, the appellants have preferred this writ appeal without wasting of time.2. On the aforesaid ground, the delay has been sought to be condoned.3. Shri Sidharth Gulatee, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.16, opposed the aforesaid contention, who submitted that the appellants were having knowledge of decision of W.P.No.6571/2010, they preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. First Additional Sessions Judge, Mudwara has passed the impugned judgment dated 19.12.1995 in Sessions Trial No. 429/89 by which appellants/accused have been convicted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/- and appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 have also been convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulations. Being aggrieved, the appellants/accused have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.2. Is is undisputed that Jagola S/o Dhanju Gadari (A/2) and Chironjia Bai W/o Jagola Gadar (A/3) had been died during the pendency of appeal. Case against them stand abated.3. Prosecution case in short is that Ramlal (PW2), father of the deceased, lodged a report on 28.6.87 at Police Station Kuthla to the effect that her daughter Galabai (deceased) was married with Shiv Prasad (A/1). He further a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- By this petition filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, sanction of this Court is sought with regard to a composite scheme of arrangement in the nature of demerger pertaining to Radio Business of the petitioner Company namely; Synergy Media Entertainment Limited, to the respondent company M/s D.B. Group through D.B. Corporation Limited, and for restructuring of the share capital of the petitioner company.2- The registered office of the petitioner company is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction in the matter. Copies of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the demerged company i.e Synergy Media Entertainment Limited, and the resulting company M/s D.B. Group through D.B. Corporation Limited, have been filed, audited balance- sheet alongwith report of the auditors are also available on record. A copy of the composite scheme of arrangement for demerger has also been brought on record and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This is a writ petition challenging the order (Annexure P-20) dated 20.08.96 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh on its administrative side, imposing punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect on the petitioner.2. Petitioner is a judicial officer. He was appointed as a Civil Judge Class-II vide order dated 13.6.75; he was promoted as Additional District Judge in due course and joined as Additional District Judge, Rewa as per order dated 14.6.89. While posted as Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District Sarguja, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a departmental inquiry was conducted against him in respect of three charges. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 15.11.94 by Madhya Pradesh High Court on administrative side (hereinafter referred to as 'High Court'), alongwith the article of charges, statements of imputations, list of witnesses and list of documents. After submission of reply by the petitioner,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 29.7.2000, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, in Sessions Trial No. 77/1996, convicting him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 1.6.1996 appellant and co-accused Hariram took lift in Truck Number U.P.-77-5811, which was being driven by Kedarnath Shukla. Ashok (deceased) was the second driver. Accused Hariram stretched his leg outside the window of the running truck, which was objected by Ashok. On this, there occurred an altercation between them. At Metewani Dhaba, truck was parked and all the persons alighted from the truck. When Ashok went to drink water, accused Hariram inflicted a blow on him by means of a bamboo stick. Accused Radheshyam gave fist blows to him. Ashok suffered injuries on his head and other parts of body. Kedarnath took Ashok to Police Station Kurai. Since Ashok was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The Special Judge, Chhatarpur, has passed the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2002 in Special Case No. 119/2000 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year/one year and fine of Rs. 100/-/ 100/- respectively with default stipulation. Being aggrieved the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.2. The prosecution case in short is that on 05.06.98 prosecutrix Shobharani Saur (P.W.-1) went to collect the mahua and pick up the tendupatta in the field near by her village Jagara. When she was picking tendupatta, appellant/accused reached there and caught hold her breast and attempted to commit rape on her. But any way she got free, when appellant/accused again tried to caught her, complainant threatened him by stone. Then appellant/accused humiliated her by saying Sorni.3. Complainant lodged the report in police Station, Bajna on the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Shri A.P. Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the respondents. This order shall decide W.P.6846/09 and W.P. 6847/09 arising out of a common order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 18.12.2008 deciding the matter of petitioner under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessment year 2000-01,2001-02 and 2002-03. So far as the assessment year 2001-02 is concerned, the contention of the petitioner in respect of condonation of delay in filing return was accepted so the petitioner is satisfied with this part of the order. So far as the assessment year 2000-01 and 2002-03 are concerned delay in filing the return was not condoned so these two petitions are filed assailing the aforesaid part of the order separately. W.P.6846/09 relates to assessment year 2000-01 and W.P.6847/09 relates to assessment year 2002-03. To consider the controversy involved in this case, we have taken W.P....
Tag this Judgment!