Madhya Pradesh Indore Court July 2011 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.
Mahesh Chandra S/O Late Jagdishchandra Agrawal Vs. Kamal Kumar S/O Sha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh Indore
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
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/-....
Daulatram S/O Kanhaiyalal Patidar Vs. Onkarlal S/O Nandaji Mali
Court: Madhya Pradesh Indore
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
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...
Niranjankumar Awasthi Vs. Ajay Vijaywargiya and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh Indore
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
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...
Chhotya s/o Nathu Vs. State of M.P. Thro' P.S.Sendhwa
Court: Madhya Pradesh Indore
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
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...
Ashish Verma Vs. Neeraj Vyas and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh Indore
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
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 ...
Pramod Dhanodkar Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh Indore
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
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...
Managing Director Vs. Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangh (Congr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh Indore
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
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...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›