Madhya Pradesh Court January 2004 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Shri Radhika Prakashan (Raipur) Priv ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT57
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, C.J.1. This appeal filed by the Income Tax Department is directed againstorder of the learned Single Judge, dated 6-3-2002 in Writ Petition No. 808 of2001 [2002(4) M.P.H.T. 47]. 2. The first respondent moved the learned Single Judge seeking direction to the appellants to accept the declaration under Section 88 of the Finance Act No. 2 of 1998 for the assessment year 1991 under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The application was filed before the Competent Authority on 28-1-1999.3. The only question was whether on the date of filing the declaration, an appeal was pending or not since pendency of an appeal was a pre-requisite for a declaration to be made.4. The facts very briefly are, the respondent Company commenced its business of publication of newspaper 'Swadesh' with effect from 3-11-1989. The respondent Company filed its return for the Assessment Year 1990-91 on 31-2-1990 declaring loss at Rs. 1,90,240/-. The assessment was completed vide order dated 31-3...
Keshkali Vs. Uday Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC642
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the award dated 27th February, 2001 passed by Second Additional Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dabra, District Gwalior in Claim Case No. 65/2000 whereby the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the findings that it is not proved that the deceased Lajjaram died due to the injuries sustained in the motor Accident.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27th April, 1989 some bones of a dead person were recovered and sent to Dr. V.N. Nagach for performing postmortem. The body was not complete and only some bones were produced hence the doctor could not perform post-mortem. A First Information Report was lodged on 27th April, 1989 alleging that the deceased Lajjaram who died due to crush injuries sustained by tractor No. MIH-7046 and trolley No. HNT-2511.3. To prove its case the claimant has examined Keshkali (P.W.-1), who is wife of the deceased Lajjaram. In para 1 of her statement she has ...
Satyanarayan Vs. Manoharlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC721
ORDERP.C. Agarwal, J.1. Appeal has already been admitted. Advocates heard. Record of the Tribunal and its award perused.2. Appellant was travelling on his moped M.80. Passenger Bus No. M.O.U. 0077 dashed the moped injuring the appellant. Manoharlal (R-1), bus driver, was prosecuted under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The Tribunal has held the bus driver guilty of negligent. It has held bus owner and the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. On these points there has been no contest between the parties in this appeal.3. Controversy is confined as to quantum of compensation. Appellant has suffered multiple abrasions on his left fore-arm, swelling and deformity on right hip with suspected fracture vide the M.L.C. report, Ex. P4. As per x-ray report Ex. P4, fracture of left shaft of radius was noted. Appellant was treated at Jaora Civil Hospital where he remained admitted for 18 days. A plaster was put and treatment had continued for six months as per the depo...
Durg Singh Vs. Mahesh Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2004MP146
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant who is a subsequent purchaser (defendant No. 2) against the judgment and decree dated 27-8-1993 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sagar in civil suit No. 42-A/89 (old No. 3-A/88) decreeing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance of the contract.2. In short the suit of plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 Devi Singh was the bhumiswami of the suit land which is agricultural land, the said Devi Singh on 11-5-1988 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-to sell the land in question to him. A sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid as an earnest money and the balance amount was agreed between the parties to be paid on 20-5-1988. In the document the condition was embodied that in the case Devi Singh would avoid to get the sale-deed executed the plaintiff may file a suit for the execution of the sale-deed. The plaintiff, though insisted Devi Singh to get the sale deed executed and when t...
Sukhdev Kumar Puri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC526
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Short facts of the case are that Janak Dulari Puri was the sister of petitioner. She died intestate. Janak Dulari Puri was having her account with respondent No. 2. After the death of Janak Dulari Pun, petitioner obtained succession certificate in respect of other securities of deceased Janak Dulari Puri, which is on record as Annexure P-2. As the respondent No. 2 did not permit the petitioner to operate the locker, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled for operation of locker. This suit was opposed by respondent No. 2 by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., that without seeking consequential relief of possession of locker, suit for mere declaration is not maintainable. The trial Court considering the objection raised by respondent No. 2 dismissed the suit vide order dated 30.4.2003. Thereafter petitioner filed this petition.2. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection that the petition...
Abdul Ajij Vs. Smt. Nurjahan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC419
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/defendant No. 1 has filed this appeal against respondent No. 1 plaintiff and respondent No. 2/ defendant No. 2, under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1994 in Civil Suit No. 83-B/91 passed by Xlth learned Additional District Judge, Indore.2. The admitted facts of the case are that Adbul Rashid was the father of plaintiff and he has expired on 8.3.1990. It is also the common ground that Abdul Rashid had the Life Insurance Policy No. 28643072 dated 9.12.1978 of Rs. 15,000/- and other Policy No. 340257730 dated 9.12.1978 of Rs. 25,000/-. It is the common ground that defendant No. 1 Abdul Ajij is the real uncle of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 was the nominee in both the Policies of Abdul Ajij. That the defendant No. 2 LIC, has paid the amount of Rs. 22, 120.10paiseon 11.5.1990ofPolicy No .28643072tothenomineedefendantNo. l. That the amount of another policy which was of Rs. 25,000/- is still not paid by the Life Insuranc...
Hirdesh Kumar Patel and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT178; 2004(1)MPLJ442
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. The appellants stands convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 3 years respectively. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each by judgment dated 7-8-2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 119/2001. The sentence have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding this appeal arc that deceased Sangeeta was married to appellant No. 1 Hirdesh Kumar about two and half years before her death. Appellant No. 2 Awadesh Kumar is brother of the appellant No. 1. Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are their parents. After one year of the marriage the appellants started harassing deceased Sangeeta on the ground that her father did not give the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- as promised at the time ...
Shyam Singh Vs. Gsm Association and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT342; 2004(2)MPLJ165; 2004(29)PTC57(MP)
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 7-10-2002 whereby the suit of plaintiff has been dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the CPC'). According to the Trial Court, as the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, as such, by invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (a), CPC, the suit has been dismissed.2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for prohibitory injunction on the averment that on coming to know through the programme 'The week in business', telecast by D.D. 2 Metro Channel of Doordarshan on 9-7-2001 at 8.00 A.M. that the defendant No. 1 is launching an international chassis numbering system for mobile phones, which is a technology based on 'Zero', without actually using 'zero'. According to the plaintiff, by this technology, it is claimed that the mobile phones could be locked in case of theft and loss. In the plaint, it has been further pleaded that the plaintiff has adopted...
Mahendra Kumar Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT347
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1993 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Begumganj in Civil Suit No. 5-A/88 whereby the suit of specific performance of the contract filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed, the plaintiff has come up in appeal.2. In brief, the suit of plaintiff is that Late Ram Sharan Singh whose heirs arc the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 22-4-1981 to sell the land in question for a consideration of Rs. 42,000/- and obtained Rs. 29,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 13,000/- shall be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. A document to that effect was also executed. However, before the sale deed could be executed by said Ram Sharan Singh, he passed away after four months from the date of the execution of the said agreement. The plaintiff for several times approached the defendants who arc the heirs of deceased Ram Sharan...
Sarafraj Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT122
A.K. Gohil, J.1. Appellant stands convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and sentenced to life imprisonment in S.T. No. 117/94 vide judgment dated 26-3-96 by I ASJ, Vidisha, Camp Sironj.2. Appellant and acquitted accused Nanne Khan and another accused Rajamiyan (subsequently died) were tried under Section 302/34 of the Code on the allegation that in furtherance of common intention with Sarafraj, Nannekhan and Rajamiyan they committed murder of Sudhir Bhargav (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') on 15-1-94 at 4 P.M. Rajamiyan died during the course of the trial.3. Prosecution story succinctly stated is that on 15-1-94, deceased was going to market from his house. When he reached on public road opposite the Gumthi of Jagannath Sahu and near the house of Dhannu Kumhar at about 4 P.M., accused Sarafraj and Rajamiyan met him, there was some wordy quarrel between them, abuses were exchanged. In the meantime other associates of Sarafraj and Rajamiyan cam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »