Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: madhya pradesh indore Page 1 of about 9 results (0.739 seconds)

Aug 01 2011 (HC)

Nannoolal S/O Shri Dewalal Vs. State of M.P. Through P.S.Kurawar

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgement dated 04.09.2001 passed by the Court of Shri V.P.S.Chouhan, Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, Distt. Rajgarh (Biaora) in ST No.77/2001 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional simple imprisonment of six months and under Section 203 of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of one year. 2. According to the prosecution story, on 14.03.2001, at 6.10 a.m., Nannoolal lodged the report in the Police Station Kuravar that in the last evening at about 7.00 p.m. he and his wife returned home from factory. He inquired from his wife Tulsibai that in the way to whom she was talking. She replied why he had suspicion without any reason on her then Nannoolal told that he has seen her several times. On this point Tulsibai started altercation, hence Nannoolal gave her two slaps. Thereafter, Tu...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2011 (HC)

Mahesh Chandra S/O Late Jagdishchandra Agrawal Vs. Kamal Kumar S/O Sha ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against dismissal of his money suit for recovery of Rs.64,000/- by the Court of 15th ADJ, Indore vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.13-B/2005. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.64,000/- with allegations that the defendant, on account of his need, received a sum of Rs.50,000/- for his business in the name and style of M/s. Neha Pulses and executed a receipt in his own handwriting and under his own signature on 05.01.2000 on his letterhead. Interest was orally agreed at the rate of 1.50% per month. Defendant did not make the repayment. Consequently, demand notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 06.07.2001. Service was avoided by the defendant and consequently, notice came back unserved. Thus, the plaintiff instituted suit for Rs.64,000/-, which included interest to the tune of Rs.13,750/- and notice expenses Rs.250/-....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 2011 (HC)

Daulatram S/O Kanhaiyalal Patidar Vs. Onkarlal S/O Nandaji Mali

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. This is plaintiff's first appeal against the dismissal of his money suit for recovery of Rs.62,325/- vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2004 passed by the Court of ADJ, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur in Civil Suit No.2-B/2003. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit against defendant/respondent for recovery of money, mainly, with the allegations that plaintiff and defendant, both, are agriculturists. Plaintiff on 07.06.2000 advanced a loan of Rs.40,000/- to the defendant to meet out marriage expenses. A promissory note was duly executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for the same. Rate of interest was fixed at 2.25% per month, as mentioned in the promissory note. Defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, suit for recover of Rs.62,325/-, which included interest to the tune of Rs.22,050/-. Defendant vide his written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant denied to have received the alleged loan and further denied t...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 2011 (HC)

Niranjankumar Awasthi Vs. Ajay Vijaywargiya and Another

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. This appeal has been preferred by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2009 by the Court of X Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.54-A/2007, directing thereby eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Relevant facts in short are that plaintiff/respondents purchased the suit accommodation from one Kamal Kishore Shrivastava son of Chandravilas Shrivastava, vide registered sale deed dated 31.08.2006. Kamal Kishore Shrivastava has executed a power of attorney on 01.12.1995 in favour of one Om Prakash Vijaywargiya, son of Harikishan Vijaywargiya. Defendant obtained the suit accommodation on rent on 01.06.2004 @ 3,500/- per month as rent from Om Prakash Vijaywargiya, through a broker Bhavesh Patel. Defendant did not make payment of rent after June, 2004. Since the defendant was occupying the suit accommodation as tenant of Kamal Kishore Shrivastava, he became...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2011 (HC)

Chhotya s/o Nathu Vs. State of M.P. Thro' P.S.Sendhwa

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.5.1996 passed by the Court of Shri B.P.Maheshwari, Ist A.S.J. Badwani in S.T. No. 146/89 by which the appellant has been convicted under S. 307 of the I.P.C. with R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.200/-. 2. According to prosecution case in the field of Jadiya a temporary hut (Tapra) of appellant Chhotya was constructed since last 8-10 years. The family of Chhotya was living there. Due to which his crops were being damaged. Therefore, complainant was asking him for the last four years to remove this Tapra and accused used to reply that he will shift his Tapra. About 12-15 days before the date of incident on 14.3.89 Chhotya with the help of villagers shifted his Tapra. His brother Hemda also went to help him. In the night of 14.3.89 at about 10 p.m. when the complainant Jadiya was returning to home accused persons met him. At that time Chhotya was having bow and arrow, Gathiya was having axe and Lem...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2011 (HC)

Ashish Verma Vs. Neeraj Vyas and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. This civil revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Shajapur, in Civil Suit No. 3A/2004, dismissing thereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that plaintiff No.1 has instituted a suit mainly with allegations that the plaintiff and defendant/revisionist constituted a partnership firm in the name and style M/s Genius Computers, Shajapur with equal shares in it i.e. 50% each. An agreement to this effect was duly executed between them on 4.9.1999. Plaintiff cooperated in running of the said partnership business. After 25.5.2003, defendant No.1 caused obstruction in the partnership business firm. Plaintiff, thereafter made a demand for accounts and further for half of his profits in the said partnership firm. Defendant No. 1 declined to make payment, hence the suit with following reliefs:- I) It may be declared that defendant No. 1 and plaintiff are partners in the business of the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2011 (HC)

Pramod Dhanodkar Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. This appeal is directed under section 2(1) of M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniayam, 2005 assailing judgment dated 5.9.2007 by the Single Bench in W.P.No.1615/2000. The appellant had challenged order dated 21.3.1998 Annexure P-20 before the Writ Court by which petitioner was found guilty in departmental inquiry and compulsorily retired from service; the appellate order dated 16.11.1998 Annexure P-22, by which the punishment was modified by the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, holding that the appellate authority had considered the quantum of punishment, modified it and in such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. 2. Before considering the contentions of parties it would be appropriate if factual position in the case is stated in brief. The petitioner was working as Senior Manager, MM Grade III scale w...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2011 (HC)

Managing Director Vs. Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangh (Congr ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. This writ petition has been preferred against the award dated 08.01.2007 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) by the MP Industrial Tribunal, Indore in Reference Case No.2/2006. 2. Relevant facts, which are not in dispute, are that the first party is a registered union in the name of Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangh (Congress) (respondent No.1) whereas second respondent-Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. There was a memo of settlement (Annexure P/4) dated 03.02.1988 in Form 'M' as per Section 43 of the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the MPIR Act) and Rule 44 of the MP Industrial Relations Rules, 1961. Settlement was arrived at after conciliation proceedings between the Managing Director, MP State Road Transport Corporation and the Madhya Pradesh Transport Workers Federation. Relevant terms of the sett...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 2011 (HC)

Dr. Ashok Virang Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore

1. Although one of us namely (Hon'ble Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar) has decided to recuse from the case, we both are of the definite opinion that the matter is to be brought on the floor because it is an illustrative case of professional mischief, by seeking stay before Judge of this Court sitting alone as vacation Judge of consent order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, without making a request to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of Division Bench for hearing of the matter, and also by avoiding available Division Bench on various dates during Court's summer vacation but by making mention without there being applications for vacational hearing and urgent hearing on review petition on merits. No date for listing was specified in the mention memo so that presumably the matter could be got listed before vacational Single Judge (during non-availability of vacational Division Bench during Court's summer vacation) who had no jurisdiction to hear the review under the High ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //