Madhya Pradesh Court October 2002 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.
Smt. Kamlabai and ors. Vs. Competent Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT509
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. Plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has filed present appeal by which suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. This appeal was admitted on 7-3-1989 on following substantial questions of law :--(i) 'Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holdingthat the appellants had the remedy of filing suit challenging the order dated 29-12-1975 under Section 4 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 and was not barred under Section 46 of the Act ?'(ii) 'Whether the suit filed under Section 11 (5) within three months of the publication of the draft statement under Section 11 (4) of the Act was not barred by limitation ?'3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the owner of land survey No. 156 total area 21.36 acre of Village Sontalai, District Harda. The ground of suit is that the aforesaid land belongs to one Kaluji. After the death of Kaluji there were three successors namely Mohanlal, Gangabai ...
Gopal S/O Mohanlal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(86)ECC544
S.L. Kochar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant, against the judgment passed by Ill ASJ Mandsaur in ST No. 18/94 on 27.2.1997, thereby convicting the appellant, for the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1895 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo R1 for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine further Rl for 2 years.2. The facts necessary for disposal for this appeal, are that on 28th September, 1993, the SHO of Police Station Afajalpur, received information from informant/Mukhbir that one Gopal Kumawat of village Lasudawan would be going to village Badwan along with illicit opium. On the basis of the said information, Exh.P/1, SHO O.P. Dube (PW 8) made a Panchanama of the information in presence of witnesses Subhash (PW 1) and Dulesingh (PW 2) and sent the information Exh. P/15 to SDOP Sitamau, along with a copy thereof with constable Heeralal (PW 6) which was received by reade...
Shri Narmada Enterprises and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR420(MP); 2003(1)MPHT515; 2003(1)MPLJ511
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. Petitioners are assailing the award (P-4) dated 24-12-2001 which has been made a Rule of the Court by Vth A.D.J., Bhopal as per order P-5. Main challenge is on the ground that Arbitrator has exceeded the terms of contract and has virtually rewritten the contract between the parties M/s. B.D. Bhanot and M.P. State Mining Corporation to the detriment of right of other contractors and public exchequer.2. In the year 2000 tenders were invited for 'one year' for extraction of sand as per advertisement (P-1), dated 24-10- 2000, Sand was to be extracted from the sand mines. Advertisement (P-1) provided that the tenderers would be required to remove 4,44,567 cubic meters of sand within 'one year' and would deposit royalty in accordance with the prescribed rates. The work order was given w.e.f. 8-11-2000, Respondent No. 3 worked the mines for about 4 months and made a request for reduction of the quantity of extraction of sand by at least 31045 cubic meters which was red...
In Re: Kranti Kumar Saxena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR33(MP)
A.K. Gohil, J. 1. The Fifth Additional Judge, to the court of the District Judge, Indore, has referred the following questions for answer by this court under Section 113 read with Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure:(a) That whether the provisions of Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are applicable in its strict sense to the court of reference under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act ?(b) If so, whether the court is liable to deposit the deducted amount by T. D. S. challan and to issue deduction certificate in Form No. 25A of the Income-tax Rules and to file the return like a private individual ?(c) If not, then at what point of time and by whom this tax is to be deducted ?(d) Whether the court of reference can itself retain the amount of approximate tax and inform the concerned Income-tax Officer to collect it by means of voucher ?2. After receiving this reference, notices were issued to all the concerned parties. Nobody appeared on behalf of the clai...
Mamtabai Vs. Bharat Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC750
A.K. Gohil, J.1. Appellant/wife has filed this appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh (Rajgarh) in Civil Suit No. 3-A/94 by which it dismissed the petition for divorce.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was married with respondent on 3.2.1990. She filed this divorce petition on 1.2.1994 alleging therein that the respondent/husband was always compelling to the petitioner to bring dowry from his father which according to the petitioner her father was unable to give because of his poor condition. In the year 1993 appellant's father brought her from her husband's house on the occasion of Holi and thereafter the respondent/ husband never came to take her back. On 5.5.1993 she came to know that the respondent has married another girl Parvatibai. Therefore, by performing second marriage, the respondent/husband has practised cruelty with the appellant. Written...
Ram Swaroop Sharma and anr. Vs. Ram Murthi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1697
S. Samvatsar, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident challenging award dated 28.9.1995 passed by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 25 of 1991.2. Facts of the case are that on 14.6.90 the deceased Ram Mahesh was travelling in a tractor-trolley. Tractor was registered as MP 06-7663. As per the allegations in the claim petition the deceased was going in the tractor to cut wood. The said tractor tumbled and the deceased was crushed under the trolley. The claimants, therefore, filed a claim petition against the present appellants and the insurance company, respondent No. 5, for compensation of the deceased Ram Mahesh.3. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 74,000 with 12 per cent interest. However, the insurance company was exonerated from payment of compensation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence at the time of accident.4. The main contention of the appellant is ...
Mohan Aluminium Orchards Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P.E.B. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT429
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner is assailing the interlocutory order (P-11) passed by the Arbitrators on 17-8-2002 under Section 16(2) read with Section 16(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Petitioner filed an application (P-8) under Section 16(2) read with Section 16(4) of the Act raising the objection to the effect that there is no arbitration agreement in existence, as such the proceedings are not maintainable at the behest of M/s. Klen & Marshal (M & E) Ltd. Another question raised is whether any award can be passed which may be binding on other consortium members. Petitioner submitted that such a plea cannot be precluded merely because arbitrators were appointed or there was participation in the appointment of arbitrator by the parties. The initiation of these proceedings and its continuation is without authority of law and contrary to the contract entered into in pursuance to order dated 29-3-1996. The learned arbitrators h...
Mahesh Prasad Vs. Smt. Chhoti Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT588; 2003(2)MPLJ560
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the husband/appellant has called in question the justifiability and the legal validity of the judgment and decree dated 18-10-93 passed in Civil Suit No. 22-A/91 by the learned District Judge, Hoshangabad to the extent that the said Court has granted permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month at the time of passing of the decree under Section 25 of the Act.2. The appellant as plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and dessertion. Many an averment was putforth to obtain a decree for divorce. An application preferred under Section 13 of the Act was resisted by the wife on the ground that she had not misbehaved in a cruel manner and the factum of dessertion, as putforth by the plaintiff, did not deserve consideration.3. During the pendency of the suit an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed and t...
State of M.P. Vs. Parwatibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN751(MP)
ORDERThe Fifth Additional Judge, to the Court of District Judge, Indore has referred the following questions for answer by this court under section 113 read with order XLVI rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure:(a) That whether the provisions of section 194A of Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable in its strict sense to the court of reference under sections 18 and 30 of Land Acquisition Act ?(b) If so, whether, the court is liable to deposit the deducted amount by T.D.S. Challan and to issue deduction certificate in form 25-A of Income Tax Rules and to file the return like a private individual ?(c) If not, then at what point of time and by whom this tax is to be deducted (d) Whether the court of reference can itself retain the amount of approximate tax and inform concerned Income Tax Officer to collect it by means of voucher ?2. After receiving this reference, notices were issued to all the concerned parties. Nobody appeared on behalf of the claimants even after issuance of S.P.C. and r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›