Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2000, delivered by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.164/1996, convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.1995 at about 09:30 pm Raj Kumar, nephew of the applicant on Egg shop of complainant Rajesh Kumar received injury in his hand, when he was cleaning the Egg shop. Raj Kumar reached at his home. The allegation against the applicant Munna is that he immediately came to his Egg shop and caused simple injury on the neck of the complainant Rajesh Kumar. 3. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited the documents vide Exh.P/1 to P/16. 4. The learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This is second visit of the applicant to this Court for appointment of arbitrator. Earlier he filed AC No. 11/2013 for appointment of arbitrator. The said case was decided by this court on 07.03.2014 (Annexure P/10). The respondent herein filed SLP No. 17065/2014 against the said order. The SLP was dismissed in limine on 18.07.2014. This Court in AC 11/2013 appointed a former judge of this Court as sole arbitrator. The proceedings before the sole arbitrator began and on 13.04.2014 the applicant herein appeared before the arbitrator. The respondent sent an application by speed post seeking adjournment till 13.07.2014 on the ground that they intend to challenge the order of this court dated 07.03.2014 before Apex Court. Learned arbitrator posted the matter on 20.07.2014. On 20.07.2014, neither party appeared. Learned arbitrator opined that the parties are not interested in prosecuting the arbitration proceedings. Hence, proceedings were terminated. Applicant preferred an application d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of District Magistrate, Gwalior dated 31.3.2015 (Annexure P/). The District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the 'SARFAESI Act') directed the Tahsildar, Gwalior to take possession of the mortgaged property and hand it over to Bank of Maharashtra. Facts: 2. The petitioners are daughters of Smt. Subhadra Bai. It is contended by the petitioners that the property in question was purchased by Smt. Subhadra Bai through registered sale deed dated 16.4.1979 from Dhani Ram Gupta (Annexure P/10). Smt. Subhadra Bai died while remaining in possession on 17.10.2005. Smt Subhadra Bai died leaving behind legal representatives (i) Meera Gupta-daughter (petitioner) (ii) Rajesh Gupta-son (iii) Geeta Gupta-daughter (petitioner) (iv) Sunita Gupta-daught...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pending as Criminal Case No.7197/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior registered under Section 7/15 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rules known as Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Briefly stated the factual matrix is as follows: the complainant/respondent No.2 is the Food Inspector serving under the respondent No.1 Deputy Director Foods and Drugs Administration, District- Gwalior. He has been authorized by Public Health and Family Welfare Department and also by Director Food and Drugs Administration and Local Health officer to observe the Prevention of Food Adulteration in Gwalior. The complainant / respondent No.2 on 13.06.2011 at about 4:30 pm came to the shop of the petitioner, which is in the Firm Future Retail Ltd., Deendayal City Mall, Phoolbag, which is run by Surendra and Company. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.5.1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh in Special Case No.136/1997 whereby, the appellant has been convicted of offences under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as the Special Act ) and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecutions case in short, is that, on 20.10.1997 at about 7.00 p.m the prosecutrix (PW1) was working in a hut situated in her husband's field at Village Ghanshyampura (Police Station Batiagarh, District Damoh). At about 7.00 p.m the appellant went inside the hut and switched off the lamp which was burning inside the room and thereafter, he hugged the prosecutrix. On her shouting Ratan (PW2), husband of the prosecutrix and Rajkumar (PW3), son of the prosecutrix, came to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26th June, 2004, passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) in S.T. No. 19/2004, whereby present appellant Balveer s/o Rajaram Dangi has been convicted of the offence under Sections 450 and 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and again for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer additional simple imprisonment of one on each count. 2. By the same impugned judgment and on the same set of evidence and findings, other accused Ravindra has been acquitted of the alleged charges. 3. The facts in short relevant for the decision of this appeal are that on dated 24/10/2003, at 6 p.m. prosecutrix, wife of Vishan Singh Dangi, having age of 25 years, went to the house meant in Khaliyan, situated at the agricultural field for collecting straw (Bhusa). When she was coming out of the room, Balveer Dan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This first appeal assails the judgment dated 30.10.2014 passed by Additional Principal Family Court, Gwalior by which a petition for divorce filed by the husband/appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for brevity "Act") on the ground of cruelty has been rejected. 2. During the pendency of this case an application (I.A.No.1429/2015) has been moved jointly by the rival parties stating that they may be granted divorce by mutual consent on the terms and conditions as contained in this application. 3. Reading of the said I.A. filed jointly by the rival parties indicates that marriage between the appellant and respondent took place on 24.11.2008 whereafter due to strained relationship, allegations and counter allegations made by both the parties against each other, the matrimonial relationship became sour. The appellant/husband and respondent-wife started living separately since November/December 2009 and continue to do so till date. The rival parties have fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. The Petitioner, who was an Employee of the Respondents, had previously filed W.P.No.10261/2013(S) against the communication of an Order by which he was informed that he would retire from service w.e.f. 30.11.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner s date of birth is 24.7.1958 but the Respondents have wrongly recorded his date of birth as 26.11.1952 in the service record. It was alleged that in spite of the Petitioner s submitting all relevant documents before the Authorities, no decision was taken by the Authorities hence, the Petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.10261/2013(S), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27.11.2013. However, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1460/2013 modified the Order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter back to the Respondent-Authorities with a direction to the Age Determination Committee to decide the issue regarding the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Heard. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners/accused persons Archit Agrawal and Abhishek Hada being aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna, in Sessions Trial No. 141/2013. 2. The facts giving arise to this revision are that Sessions Trial No. 141/2013 (State v. Ranu Balmiki and others) is pending before the Sessions Judge, Guna for trial of offence under Sections 307/34, 302, 147, 148 of 149 of IPC read with Section 25/27 of Indian Arms Act. 3. Police Station, Guna, filed a supplementary charge-sheet against the accused Sattu @ Shatrughan in the same crime number which was later committed to the Sessions Court, hence, Sessions Trial No. 141-A/2013 has been registered. Court proceeded separate trial for the reason that in Sessions Trial No. 141/2013, thirteen witnesses were examined and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has given a specific direction to dispose the case within a stipulated time. Hence, the Sessions Judge, Guna vide order dated 16.06...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. In this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1996'), the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the trial Court by which the objection preferred by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act, has been rejected. The relevant facts which need mention, are stated infra. 2. The appellants invited tenders for ploughing and levelling work of the agricultural land of the farmers belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and persons living below the poverty line (BPL) under the "Swarnajayanti Grameen Rojgar Yojna"of the State Government. The tender of the respondent was accepted and an agreement was executed between the parties on 24.3.2003. Clause 11 of the agreement contained an arbitration clause, which reads as under:- HINDI 3. A dispute arose between the parties. The respondent filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act before the trial Court, which was allowed v...
Tag this Judgment!