Madhya Pradesh Court July 2003 Judgments
Pratap Singh Vs. Bademjee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT292
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 2-2-99, passed by ADJ, Khurai in MJC No. 28/98, whereby application under Section 148, CPC filed by JDR/non-applicant has been allowed.2. DHR/applicant instituted C.S. No. 94-A/94 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Khurai for specific performance of contract dated 27-4-82, whereby, as alleged, JDR/non-applicant agreed to sell his house situated on Khasra No. 50/1, 51/K, Shashtri Ward, Khurai Distt. Sagar for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of which he received an amount of Rs. 9,500/- as part payment. Vide judgment/decree dated 2-4-84, passed by Civil Judge, C.S. No. 94-A/94 was decreed directing JDR/non-applicant to refund Rs. 9,500/- part payment received by him and Rs. 500/- as damages alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the date of filing of suit till date of its payment. It was directed that in case the JDR/non-applicant fails to make the aforesaid payment within a period of 90 ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mahaveerdas Shastri Vs. Shri Sadguru Seva Sangh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT383
A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5th July, 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 51 -A/87, dismissing his suit, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. In brief, the case of plaintiff is that Mahant Ranchhor Das Jee (hereinafter referred to as 'Mahant Ji'), Janki Kund, Chitrakut, District Satna gave Tilak and Kanthi to the plaintiff and accepted him as his 'Vairagi Chela' in presence of certain saints and hence, the plaintiff became Vairagi Chela of Mahant Ji and to bring him up to the mark the plaintiff was sent to Varanasi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi where he was educated and passed different examinations. After passing matriculation examination the plaintiff took admission in Kashi Vidyapcctha for his education of Shastri (B.A. Standard) which he passed in the year 1975, thereafter he passed M.A. Degree in the year 1978 from Kashi Vidyapeetha, Varanasi. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Darbari Vs. Sunwa and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT111; 2004(2)MPLJ490
S.K. Pande, 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment/decree dated 21-2-89, passed by ADJ, Panna in C.A. No. 3-A/85 partially modifying the decree dated 30-1-85, passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Ajaygarh in C.S. No. 17-A/84, the defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.2. Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:--Whether the suit for declaration simpliciter without seeking any other relief is maintainable ?3. Paltu Gadariya was the owner of the suit lands situated at Village Singhpur, Tehsil Ajaygarh. He was survived by his widow Muniya Bai and two sons. Plaintiff/respondents Sunwa and late Hulasi Gadariya. Defendant/respondent Badi Bahu is widow of Hulasi Gadariya, Plaintiff/respondent Sunwa instituted C.S. No. 17-A/84 for declaration that he is the owner of the suit land, in possession. It has been further stated that there had been a partition among Muniya, Sunwa and Hulasi Gadariya wherein l/3rd interest in suit land was allotted to...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan General Store Vs. Vivek Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP42; 2003(4)MPLJ342
S.S. Jha, J. 1. This order shall govern all the aforesaid petitions.2. A question has been referred by the Single Bench regarding provisions applicable for recording evidence in a Civil Suit, which is subject matter of appeal, whether provisions of Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply or the provisions as envisaged under Rule 5 will apply to a suit, whose decree is appealable.3. Counsel appearing for the parties have argued in one voice that Rule 4 of Order XVIII is not applicable to suits where the judgment of the suit is appealable and submitted that in such cases evidence should be recorded as provided under Rule 5 of Order XVIII CPC.4. Rule 4 of Order XVIII has been amended by Act No. 22 of 2002, whereby CPC has been amended and the amended Code is in force w.e.f. 1st July 2002. It is contended by the counsel for parties that Rule 4 of Order XVIII is independent from Rule 5 Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended by the counsel appeari...
Tag this Judgment!Dodsal Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT446; 2003(4)MPLJ236
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia for quashing order dated 8-8-1990 (Annexure P-6) and the other orders by which the petitioner has been directed to pay electricity duty under theMadhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as'the Act'). 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner Dodsal Limited having its head office at Bombay was given a contract for construction of a pipe line for supply of natural gas from Hazira in Gujarat to Jagdish Nagar (U.P.) via Bijapur in M.P. The construction of pipe line was done from August, 1986 to March, 1988. Petitioner/Company was generating its own electricity through generators for consumption in its contract work and also in the residential quarters which were built for the workers engaged in this work. The respondent No. 2 issued notice to the petitioner/Company on 25-5-1990 for payment of electricity duty to the tune of Rs. 20,51,000/-. Section 3 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Tower Engg. Works Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2005MP47; 2003(4)MPHT241
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 15-9-95, passed by 7th ADJ, Bhopal in C.S. No. 61-B/89.The plaintiff/non-applicants - Union Bank of India instituted C.S. No. 61-B/89 in the Court of 7th ADJ, Bhopal for recovery of arrears of debt valued at Rs. 1,70,392.60 with interest etc. Defendant/applicant filed a counter claim of Rs. 63,55,834/- and also claimed exemption from payment of Court fee on the ground of State Government Notification dated 1-4-83. The exemption from payment of Court fee, as claimed has been resisted by the plain-tiff/non-applicant. Vide impugned order dated 15-9-95, the Court below held that in any case the annual income of applicant at the time of filing of counter claim was more than Rs. 6,000/- and that defendant/applicant is not entitled to seek exemption from payment of Court fee with reference to the State Government Notification dated 1-4-83. Hence this revision.2. State Government Notification No. F...
Tag this Judgment!Sti Finance Ltd. Vs. Premier Industries (India) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)4CompLJ425(MP); [2004]49SCL552(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a company petition filed by the petitioner under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent company - a limited company engaged in the manufacturing activities. A winding up is sought essentially on the ground of inability to pay admitted debt amounting to Rs. 15,73,038. It is the case of petitioner that they being the company engaged in the business of leasing and hire purchase, gave loan from time to time to the respondent company worth Rs. 15,73,038. It is contended that despite receipts of the payment from the petitioner company and virtually admitting the liability to repay, the respondent company did not pay the money, nor the interest accrued thereon and hence, need to file a company petition arose after serving a statutory notice under Section 434 of the Act.2. On behalf of the respondent company a shelter of Section 22 of SICA is taken. According to respondent, since the reference under Section 15 of SICA is pending b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vallabh Leasing and Finance Co. Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(MP)20; [2004]265ITR1(MP)
DIPAK MISRA J. 1. In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has called in question the penetrability and defensibility of the order dated November 2, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 234/Jab of 1997 and I. T. A. No. 200/Jab of 1997.2. The facts which are essential to be stated for the disposal of the present appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring a net loss of Rs. 2,59,936. The audit copies of final accounts were filed along with the return. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The notice was issued as it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee-com-pany, who is engaged in the business of financing industrial enterprises, had not done any significant activity so as to get it reflected in the audit report except the fact that it had transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Mena Transport Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPLJ52; [2006]143STC58(MP)
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Justice hurried is justice buried. Rule of audi alteram partem (No one should be condemned unheard) or audiatur et altera pars (Hear the other side). Nemo in-auditus condemnari debet is non sit contumax (No man should be condemned without being heard unless he be contumacious). Qui aliquid statuerit, parie inaudita altera, acquum licet, dixerit, haud acquum facerit (He who determines any matter without hearing both sides, though he may have decided right, has not done justice). Justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done.2. These are some of the basic maxims/principles which are sine qua non for the enforcement of rule of law as well as rule of justice.3. In this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashment of orders dated June 6, 2003 and June 13, 2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Check-post, Gavadi, Sendhwa (MP) under Section 45-A (12) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial T...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D.S. Baghel Vs. Chairman, Governing Body Hitkarni Science, Commerc ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT404; 2003(4)MPLJ74
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 10-6-2002 (Annexure P-7) by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated and for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to reinstated the petitioner in service. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as 'honorary' Assistant Professor in Physics in Hitkarni Science, Commerce and Arts College, Jabalpur, affiliated to Rani Durgawati University by letter dated 1-9-1994 (Annexure P-1) at a monthly honorarium of Rs. 700/-. He was given pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000 from 1-1-1999 by letter dated 9-2-1999 (Annexure P-2). The post was then advertised for regular appointment as per Annexure P-4. A Selection Committee was constituted and the petitioner was interviewed. He was appointed on regular basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000 by order dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P-6) on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. His services ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »