Madhya Pradesh Court November 2003 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.
Ramesh Vs. Ganeshchandra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC475
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant mainly on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder who is not the payee or holder of cheque in due course. Therefore, the complaint filed by the power of attorney is not maintainable.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on III (2002) BC 77 (DB)=2002 Cr.L.J. 2621 (S.P. Sampathy v. Smt. Manju Gupta) On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/complainant is that as per the Power of Attorney Act and the judgment rendered by M.P. High Court (Gwalior Bench) In I (2002) BC 113=2001 Cr.L.J. 3623, Dr. Anil Kumar and Anr. v. Sant Prakash Gupta, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Action be presented by the person holding power of attorney, payee or the holder of the cheque, Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment rendered in MMTC Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchi ...
State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Shantibai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: I(2006)ACC405; 2004(2)MPLJ273
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 96, Civil Procedure Code by the defendants against judgment and decree by which ah amount of Rs. 50,000 has been awarded as compensation, to plaintiff No. 1 Shantibai and an amount of Rs. 25,000 to plaintiff No. 2 Jagrani with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.2. It is no longer in dispute that on 26th December, 1989 in Tehsil Headquarters Banda in District Sagar there was a strike of the students against the reservation policy of the Government. There was traffic jam and violence. The police personnel resorted to using tear gas and Lathi charge. Even then violence increased and, therefore, they fired in the air so that mob may disperse. The bullets from the firearms of the police hit the two ladies who are the plaintiffs and who were standing on the roof of their house which was at a height of about 10 ft. from the ground. These ladies were injured. Shantibai had four fractures in right hip and thigh. Jagrani also sustained ...
Awadhesh Prasad Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT253; 2004(3)MPLJ101
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This petition involves a small question in respect of petitioner's entitlement for the Swatantrata Sangram Samman Nidhi under the State Rules from which date; date of order passed by the High Court or from the date when the authority passed its first order rejecting the claim of petitioner ?2. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner is a Swatantrata Sangram Sainik within the definition as enumerated in M.P. Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred as 'Niyam' for short). The petitioner applied for Samman Nidhi under the aforesaid Niyam on 9-2-1995. This application was rejected by the State Government by order dated 10-6-1996 (Annexure P-10-A) and it is held that the petitioner is not freedom fighter and is not entitled for Samman Nidhi. This order of State Government was subject-matter in W.P. No. 287/1996 and it is held in Para 6:'6................ .................... ................. ............... .....................
Kok Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT215
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. The applicant is seeking bail under Section 167(2), Cr.PC.2. According to the applicant, he was formally arrested on 26-6-2003 as per order passed by CJM, Ujjain because on that date he was produced in Crime No. 346/2003 under Section 25 of Arms Act. Thereafter, he was produced before the Court concerned, i.e., Magistrate, Dewas on 1-7-2003. Whereas charge-sheet has been filed on 27-9-2003.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that computation of 90 days was started from 26-6-2003 and therefore, since the charge-sheet has not been filed within 90 days, he is entitled to be released on bail prior to filing of charge-sheet.4. The contention of the Counsel appearing for the State is that Crime No. 598/2002 for the offence under Sections 395, 397, IPC was registered by Police Station, BNP, Dewas and learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class is having jurisdiction over the matter. On 27-6-2003, an application was filed by the Police, Dewas Court...
Mrs. Sangeeta Vs. Vivek Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC765
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of the Hindu Marriage Case No. 49-A/2002 from the Family Court, Ujjain to Family Court at Gwalior.2. The case of the applicant is that the marriage in between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnised on 17.4.2000 at Bhopal according to the Hindu rites and customs. That the applicant ill-treated by the non-applicant and his family members for fulfilling their greed of dowry and the applicant was left by the non-applicant at Gwalior Railway Station on 27.10.2000. It is further pleaded by the applicant that she has filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Court of C.J.M. Gwalior and has also lodged a report against the non-applicant, arising out of which a criminal case under Sections 498A, 406 and 506, IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Gwalior. The applicant has alleged that sh...
Smt. Narayani Bai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC753; 2005ACJ1909; 2004(1)MPHT246; 2004(1)MPLJ319
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26th June, 1992 passed by Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, Bench Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Case No. 686/90, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.2. Sans unnecessary details the facts lie in a narrow compass that the appellant was travelling in 658 Up Passenger Train which was derailed between Naunera and Rithora Kalan Station at Bhind-Gwalior (narrow gauge) run by Central Railway on 18-5-1988 and eventually the appellant sustained injuries on account of said accident.3. The appellant, filed claim petition on 21-3-90 under Section 82C of the Indian Railways Act for compensation before the Tribunal as she did sustain umpteen injuries. In her claim petition, she claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) along with interest from the date of filing of the application.4. The factum of accident and the injuries s...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Anuradha Nagory
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)156; [2004]269ITR190(MP); 2004(1)MPHT282; 2004(1)MPLJ383
ORDERS. Samvatsar, J.1. This reference application is filed under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act at the instance of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bhopal. Commissioner of Wealth Tax has asked the opinion of this Court on following questions of law :--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 which came on the statute book w.e.f. 1-4-1976 could he applied in assessment years 1974-75 & 1975-76 ?''Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's half share in house No. 7/197, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur was exclusively used by her for residential purposes ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee had a half share in the house No. 7/197 Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. Other half share of the house belong to her husband. Husband and wife lived jointly in the house. The assessee has declared the value of her half share at Rs. 1,11,000/-, Rs...
Moorti Bhagwan Shri Laxmi Narayanji and Baba Shri Shri Chandji Maharaj ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT276; 2004(1)MPLJ363
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal came up for consideration before Single Bench of this Court on 3-7-2001 and the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Larger Bench as he has reached to the conclusion that there is a conflict of opinion in the two Single Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Badrilal v. DigambarJain Panchayat, Sonkutch, 1973 MPLJ 690 and Tamchand Gupta v. Smt. Annapurnabai, 1968 MPLJ 751, on the question of interpretation of the word 'business' occurring in Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the case of Badrilal (supra), it is held that the word 'business' has to be interpreted in narrower sense that means the word 'business' will include only commercial activity while in the case of Tarachand Gupta (supra), it has been held that the word 'business' is comprehensive enough to include the profession or any activity carried for earning livelihood. In another case that is in the case of Taramal v...
Raghuveer Vs. Superintendent and Project Officer, National Chambal San ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT325; 2004(1)MPLJ258
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. By this petition, challenge is made to an order dated 27-6-2002, Annexure P-2 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by which tractor of the petitioner alongwith trolly has been confiscated and declared to be property of the Government.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of the tractor in question bearing No. M.P. 06-J A 1662 alongwith trolly. Respondent No. 4 was driver of the tractor and on 13-6-2001 on the allegation that the tractor was being used for unauthorisedly digging sand in protected area namely the National Chambal Sanctuary, Morena, offence under Sections 27 and 29 punishable under Section 51 of the Act of 1972 was registered and petitioner was prosecuted for the same. While the prosecution was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vijaypur in Case No. 186/2001 tractor of the petitioner along with trolly confiscated and declared as property of the State G...
Baba Adam Das Guru Baba Ram Das (Deceased by Lr) Vs. Mool Chand Nandwa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP129
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal came up for consideration before single Bench of this Court on 3-7-2001 and the learned single Judge referred the matter to the larger Bench as he has reached to the conclusion that there is a conflict of opinion in the two Single Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Badrilal v. Digambar Jain Panchayat, Sonkutch, 1973 MPLJ 690 : (AIR 1973 Madh Pra 272) and Tarachand Gupta v. Smt. Annapurnabai, 1968 MPLJ 751 on the question of interpretation of the word 'business' occurring in Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the case of Badrilal (supra) it is held that the word 'business' has to be interpreted in narrower sense that means the word 'business' will include only commercial activity while in the case of Tarachand Gupta (supra) it has been held that the word 'business' is comprehensive enough to include the profession or any activity carried for earning livelihood. In another case that is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »