Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Madan Lal Vs. M.P. S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: I(2005)ACC670
Deepak Verma, J.1. For the death of a young person aged 24 years in a road accident, the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 142/97 has awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- to the parents. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation this appeal has been preferred for the enhancement. During the pendency of claim petition, father of deceased also died, therefore, other LRs were brought on record.2. That on 26th March, 1991 while deceased Prathmesh Gupta was travelling in his Maruti van along with his france met with a road accident. The accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of a bus belonged to respondent 1 and was being driven by respondent 2 at the time of accident. Before the Tribunal the respondents herein filed the written statement denying their liability on the ground that respondent 2 was not responsible for causing the accident. However, they were allowed by the Tribunal to proceed ex parte against them. Neither ...
Ajay Patodia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ197; 2003(3)MPHT443; 2003(4)MPLJ195
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. No. 1754/2003. This petition is filed under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashing the criminal proceedings lodged against the applicant for committing offence under Sections 306 and 406, IPC.2. The facts of the case are that one Chanda Lakhotia had lodged a complaint against the present applicant alleging that she is wife of Ramesh Lakhotia. The said Ramesh had committed suicide by hanging himself in the night of 14-3-1999. According to her, Ramesh was a scrap supplier and used to supply scrap to various factories/industries situated at Malanpur, District Bhind.3. It is alleged that before 1995 the deceased had supplied scrap to M/s Varsha Alloys situated at Malanpur and the present applicant was the Managing Director of the said industry. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs. 16,75,000/- was due to the deceased from the said firm and the said amount was not paid by the firm. Ramesh demanded the said amount ...
V.i.S.P. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(MP)718; [2004]265ITR202(MP)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short, 'the Act of 1961'), has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on April 15, 2002, in I.T.A. No. 402/Ind of 1995 pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91.2. Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal the assessee had raised three grounds. The Appellate Tribunal did not agree with the contention of the assessee with regard to ground No. 2 (wrongly mentioned as ground No. 3 in para. 9), and affirmed the finding of fact, recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with regard to the addition of Rs. 72,100 under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee derived the income from purchase and sales of sintex water tanks, etc., agents of Sinter Plast Containers, Kalol, and Bhopal. During the relevant financial year, the assessee claimed that it had purchased water tanks from Surya Services of Rs. 72,100 and made the entry in the ...
Rajaram Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT163
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Two Courts have dismissed plaintiffs suit for declaration of title in relation to land in suit. It is against this concurrent dismissal, the plaintiff has come up in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC contending that the appeal involves substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid. The question, thus, that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether any substantial question of law arises in this second appeal as contemplated under Section 100 ibid. The impugned judgment/decree is dated 16-12-2002, passed by learned IVth Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Dhar, in C.A. No. 71-A of 2001 which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 26-A of 1996, decided by Civil Judge, Class I, Badnawar, dated 18-9-1996.2. Heard Shri S.G. Gokhle, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I find no substance in the appeal. In other words, the ap...
Nawab Khan S/O Gaffur Khan (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Smt. Chhamu Bai an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT165
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an application made by the appellants of S.A. No. 7 of 1995, under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC seeking to set aside the abatement, which resulted in dismissal of S.A. No. 7 of 1995, on 26-7-2000.2. This Court by order dated 26-7-2000 dismissed the Second Appeal No. 7 of 1995 as having been abated on the ground that appellants of the second appeal failed to bring the legal representative of respondent No. 1 -Inamulla Khan who died on 25-2-1999, i.e., during pendency of second appeal.3. It is submitted that the fact of death was brought to the notice of Court as also to the notice of appellant by the Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 for the first time on 2-5-2000 in terms of Order 22 Rule 10-A ibid. It is submitted that no sooner the factum of death of respondent No. 1 was disclosed that he died on 25-2-1999 as contemplated under the aforementioned rule, the appellants without any loss of time collected the details and within 60 days made an application for...
Gendalal (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Durgi Bai and ors. Vs. Maharani Mrun ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT182
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a civil revision filed by the legal representatives of one plaintiff late Gendalal and other surviving plaintiffs under Section 115 of CPC against the appellate order, dated 2-11-2000, passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 1996, which in turn arises out of an order dated 1-7-1996, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Dhar, in Civil Suit No. 14-A of 1996. Brief facts may be taken note of for the disposal of this revision.2. One Gendalal filed a suit out of which this revision arises alongwith petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 5 against the respondents. It was a suit for declaration of title in relation to suit land, during pendency of this suit Gendalal died on 13-11-1992. As a consequence, petitioner Nos. 1 (a), (b) and (c) claiming to be the legal representatives of late Gendalal filed an application on 26-3-1993 under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC alongwith an application for setting aside of an abatement as...
Hiru and ors. Vs. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT478
A.M. Spare, J.1. Two Courts have non suited the plaintiffs by dismissing the suit. It is now in this second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, the plaintiffs have contended that the appeal involves substantial question of law as required to be made out and hence, it be admitted. So the question that arises for consideration in this second appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law The impugned judgment and decree is dated 26-11-2002, passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Barwani, in C.A. No. 10-A of 2000, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 15-A of 1998, decided by Civil Judge, Class II, Rajpur, on 29-1-2000.2. 4 plaintiffs (non-appellants herein) filed a suit by invoking the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of CPC claiming in substance a declaration and injunction against the defendant alleging inter alia that they have a right to remain in occupation of the land in question and carry on the business of manufacture of Bricks. It is alleged tha...
Kesarimal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC66; 2005ACJ209
Deepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ.1. Mrs. Niti Kakani, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent Rs. 1. None for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though served. With consent arguments heard on merits.2. For the personal injury sustained by the appellant on a road accident which took place on 25.10.2000, the Tribunal has awarded only a paltry sum of Rs. 92,000 in Claim Case Rs. 8 of 2001 decided on 30.9.2002.3. The appellant, who was doing the business of sale of readymade garments, claims that he was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration Rs. IQU 5106 by respondent Rs. 3 the appellant sustained grievous injuries on the various parts of the body. The appellant was hospitalised and remained in the M.Y. Hospital nearly for a month. The right leg above knee joint has been amputated and all fingers, including thumb of the right hand have also been amputated. The doctor PW 3 was examined to p...
Vijay Singh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT438
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for the relief to direct the respondents to make the payment of the amount of the prize of the Lottery Ticket of M.P. Daily Lottery. Petitioner won the first prize of Rs. 1 lac of the M.P. Daily Lottery in the draw held on 24-10-1992 bearing ticket No. OH 143819.2. Petitioner purchased the lottery and won the first prize over the ticket bearing No. OH 143819 in the draw of M.P. Daily Lottery run by Govt. of M.P. of which draw was held every day. Ticket was required to be presented within 30 days from the date of the draw. Petitioner was busy in agricultural operations and could not be able to go to Bhopal to receive the prize and hence sent a letter of intimation on 5-11-92. Petitioner visited the office of respondent No. 2 on 10-11-92 within 30 days from the date of the draw. He was asked by the officials of respondent No. 2 to bring Domicile Certificate, therefore, he returned back to his village and thereafter again ...
Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT391
ORDER1. When complex situations arise and emergencies and exigencies usher in, not only immediate diagnosis is required but a peremptory treatment becomes absolutely indispensable, in a way, irrefragably inevitable.2. The factual matrix of the present case frescoes a picture which is not a welcome thing in the realm of litigation inasmuch as a welfare State has the bounden duty and sacrosanct obligation to see that when a forum is created proper arrangements are made so that the litigants do not face difficulties. Similarly, it is imperative when a forum is abolished by law. In the case at hand, a Notification was issued by the Government of India on 17-4-2003 abolishing the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with immediate effect. Thereafter the State Government issued an Ordinance on 12-5-2003. Clause 3 of the said Ordinance reads as under :--'3. (1) Any plaint or other proceeding which was transferred by any Civil Court and is pending on the appointed day before the Tribunal sha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »