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.
United Bank of India Vs. Suman Enterprises and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT231; 2004(2)MPLJ206
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11-7-1994 passed by the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 99-B/94 dismissing his suit, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. No exhaustive statements of facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal. In brief, the suit of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 applied to obtain loan of Rs. 24,000/- from the plaintiff-bank in order to promote its business and, accordingly, a loan to the tune of Rs. 24,000/- was sanctioned and the aforesaid amount was paid to it by the bank on 28-11-1984 against a demand promissory note for the said amount duly executed and signed by the defendant No. 1 promising to pay a sum of Rs. 24,000/- on demand together with interest as indicated in the document. The said amount of loan was required to be paid quarterly. As defendants having failed to repay the loan amount, a suit for recovery has been filed...
Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Bhagwati Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT513; 2004(3)MPLJ586
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 30-8-2003 by which the Trial Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioners for grant of adjournment to file written statement, and order dated 27-9-2003 by which it rejected the petitioners' application seeking permission of the Trial Court to file written statement.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to file suit as an indigent person. The Trial Court issued notice in respect of the indigency of the respondent. The prayer for adjournment for filing the written statement was made by the petitioners which was rejected by the Trial Court on 30-8-2003, but, subsequently, petitioners filed written statement alongwith an application to the Trial Court to take written statement on record which was also rejected. The contention of the petitioners is that the suit itself was not registered under...
Babulal Vs. Dinesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC319
ORDERP.C. Agrawal, J.1. Record of Tribunal and its award perused.2. On 2.6.1992 appellant was travelling in bus No. G.K.-1-T/9736 from Jhabua to Bhopal. At 8.00 a.m. there had been a head on collision between this bus and truck No. M.Q.U.-549. Appellant sustained injuries due to composite negligence of both the drivers of the passenger bus and the truck. Driver of the passenger bus and the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation as well as driver and owner of the truck and its Insurance Company were impleaded as parties in the claim for rupees three lacs. The Tribunal held that the accident was result of composite negligence of both the drivers. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- in lumpsum for permanent disability, diminution in earning capacity and enjoyment of normal amenities of life etc. and an amount of Rs. 4,000/- for medical expenses, in all Rs. 24,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded which was apportioned in equal shares between the driver, owner and Insurance Company of th...
M.P. State Ware Housing Corporation and ors. Vs. Lalchand Wadwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT291
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. In this revision preferred under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983 (for brevity, 'the Act'), the assail is to the award dated 27-2-1993 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') in Reference Case No. 152 of 1999.2. The exposition of facts which is essential to be stated is that the non-applicant as petitioner instituted the Reference Case No. 152 of 1999 putting forth a claim for a sum of Rs. 3,96,895/- due from the respondent therein on account of loss of over-head charges, loss of profit due to delay in compliance of the committed aspect by the respondent Corporation against the working cost and interest arising out of contract for construction of godowns and ancillaries. As put forth, the petitioner entered into a contract with the Warehousing Corporation on 21-12-1981, Ex. D-1, for a sum of Rs. 16,81,583/- for construction often thousand MT capacity godowns and ancillary works at Sagar. The time fixed for competition of ...
Yadav Rao Bhelkar Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT237; 2004(4)MPLJ30
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1 In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of an appropriate writ for quashment of Annexure A-3, by which he has been compulsorily retired under Rule 42 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 read with Fundamental Rule 56 (2).2. According to the petitioner he was appointed in the post of LDC in the office of the Registrar, Firms & Societies, on 6-9-1973. It is putforth in the petition that while he was working in the aforesaid post, the Registrar, Firms & Societies vide Annexure A-3, dated 7-2-2002 passed an order of compulsory retirement. It is asseverated that the impugned order is totally laconic as it is silent with regard to any kind of policy-decision by which the respondent has passed an order of compulsory retirement and only the mention of public interest does not subserve the purpose. It is urged that entire service record of the petitioner has to be properly perused but, on the contrary, a mechanical order has been passed ...
Turkhiya Chemicals Vs. Upayaket Wanijykar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST45(MP)
ORDER1. This appeal under Clause X of letters patent is directed against order dated September 18, 2003, passed by the learned single Judge, in appellant's Writ Petition No. 1121 of 2003.Few facts material for deciding said appeal are mentioned herein below:Appellant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Sales Tax Officer has passed an order of assessment against present appellant on September 1, 2000. Feeling aggrieved by said assessment order, present appellant preferred a revision before Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, who is the revisional authority. Said revision came up for hearing on March 20, 2002. Since the appellant and his counsel both have remained absent on said date, revision was dismissed in default and for want of prosecution. Appellant herein filed an application for restoration of said revision before said authority on April 18, 2000, exercising its right under Rule 79(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Comme...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maya Spinners Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)485
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee against the order dt. 15th April, 2002, passed by Tribunal, Indore Bench, in ITA No. 279/Ind/2000, for the asst. yr. 1995-96.2. The appeal before the Tribunal was preferred by the assessee against the order passed by CIT, Indore, exercising powers conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act. From perusal of the order, it appears that at the end of para 2, reproducing the observations made by CIT, it has been held as under:'This clearly indicates that CIT has not recorded any specific finding and he has rather set aside the proceedings to the file of AO for reconsideration. This means the order cannot be said to be erroneous as CIT himself is not sure whether this expenditure is allowable or not?'3. In view of this finding, it appears to us that since matter itself was sent to AO by the CIT, no interference was thought fit by the learned Tribunal. However, learned counsel for appellant submitt...
Uma Mittal Vs. Arvind Mittal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC43
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2000 passed in Hindu Marriage Case No. 23/99 by the learned IXth Additional District Judge, Indore of dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1-a)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. Admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized at Indore according to the Hindu rites and customs on 22.5.1991 and from the wedlock they have a daughter, who born on 26.5.1992. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has filed Case No. 389/92 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and the Supreme Court has transferred this case to the Family Court at Amritsar and the suit was dismissed in default of appearance of the respondent/petitioner. It is also the common ground that the respondent/petitioner has filed the Case No. 193/97 for restitution of conjugal rights and an ex parts decre...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Spk Steels (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)255; [2004]270ITR156(MP)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, at the instance of the Revenue, against the order dt. 24th Jan., 2003, passed by Tribunal, Indore Bench, in ITA No. 157/Ind/97 for the asst. yr. 1994-95. Before the Tribunal also the appeal was made at the instance of the Revenue, which has since been dismissed giving rise to filing of the present appeal.2. Brief facts, material for deciding the said appeal are mentioned hereinbelow. In the assessment proceedings of the assessee-respondent, loss of Rs. 5,40,103 on account of trading in shares was claimed. As the assessee-company was engaged in business of commission agent and Explanation to Section 73 was applicable, such loss was not allowed and show-cause notice for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was issued.3. In response to the said show-cause notice issued to the assessee, it was stated that loss was genuine but was not allowed because of the deeming provisions of Explanation to Section 73 and assessee was not aw...
Savitri and ors. Vs. Mallusingh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 2004ACJ1344
A.K. Tiwari and Deepak Verma, JJ.1. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed on 5.3.1998 by First-Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barwani in Claim Case No. 94 of 1996, present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by claimants for enhancement as also for fixing the liability to pay compensation on the insurance company.2. Appellants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,99,000 against respondent No. 1 owner of the truck only. Insurance company has been exonerated of its liability.3. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for appellants was that Tribunal committed a manifest error in not fastening any liability on the insurance company. It was submitted that as per claim petition filed by claimants, it has been specifically pleaded and proved also that deceased Rajesh was travelling in the truck bearing registration No. MP 09-K 0507 as a second driver. The truck at the relevant point of time was being driven by Ramsingh who also died in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »