Madhya Pradesh Court December 2004 Judgments
JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT341
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Trade...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar and anr. Vs. Amit Sirvaiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT343
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for quashing the order dated 16-2-2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Criminal Revision No. 111/2003 maintaining the order dated 24-4-2003, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No. 658/2002.2. Non-applicant Amit Sirvaiya filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (henceforth 'the Act') before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh alleging inter alia that the petitioners issued different forged cheques on different dates which were dishonoured and returned by the bank unpaid because the amount of money standing to the credit of the petitioner account was insufficient to honour the cheque.3. Respondent/complainant served notice to the petitioners informing them that the cheques issued have been dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Notice was replied by the petitioners denying all the allegations made in the notice. They also stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep @ Piddi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC509; 2005(1)MPHT369
ORDERSubhash Samvatsa, J.1. This revision is filed by the applicant accused challenging order dated 5-11-2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Class I, Pohri in Criminal Case No. 485/2004 whereby the J.M.F.C. has rejected an application filed by the present applicant under Section 167(2), Cr.PC.2. Brief facts of the case are that Crime No. 212/2004 is registered against the applicant for committing offence under Sections 306, 304B and 498A of the IPC.3. Present applicant was arrested in connection with the said crime on 23-8-2004. Challan was filed against him on 5-11-2004. Present applicant filed an application on 29-10-2004 alleging that as challan is not filed against him within 60 days from the date of arrest hence he is entitled to bail in terms of Section 167(2), Cr.PC. Counsel for the applicant relied upon Sub-section (i) of Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 167, Cr.PC which provides that 'where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or im...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Tiwari Alias Raju, Advocate, Second Additional Govt. Prosecut ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT69; 2005(1)MPLJ204
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This batch of petitions involving common question of law based on similar facts is being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 4535 of 2004. The facts are common, but details necessary for this petition are as under :--Sr. W.P. No. Petitioner's Name Posted as Date of Date of order ofNo. Appointment removal1. 4522/04 Rajendra Tiwari IInd Addl. 1-6-2000 18-10-2004 (Ann. P-6) Government Prosecutor 2. 4527/04 Vinay Kumar Jain Govt. Pleader 16-9-2003 20-10-2004 (Ann. P-3)3. 4528/04 Indra Bhusan Shrivastava Govt. Pleader 24-7-2003 20-10-2004 (Ann. P-3)4. 4529/04 Choudhary Jogendra Singh Govt. Pleader 5-7-2003 20-10-2004 (Ann. P-4)5. 4535/04 Phool Mohammad Mansoori A.G.P. 7-12-2002 18-10-2004 (Ann. P-1)6. 4539/04 Vijay Khare A.G.P. 7-12-2002 18-10-2004 (Ann. P-1)7. 4557/04 Yaduvanshmani Pandey Govt. Advocate 31-12-1995 18-10-2004 (Ann. P-5)8. 4558/04 Ramprasad Dwivedi Ist A.G.P. 31-3-1997 18-10-2004 (Ann. P-5)...
Tag this Judgment!Chameli Bai and anr. Vs. Munna Lal Ahirwar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC486; 2005ACJ1365; 2005(4)MPLJ86
U.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'), has been preferred by claimants-appellants being dissatisfied with the award of the 11th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in Claim Case No. 159 of 1994, dated 28.2.1998. By the impugned award the Tribunal has exonerated respondent No. 3 the insurer and awarded Rs. 1,27,200 only along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. The appellants have come to this court for enhancement of the amount of award and mulcting the liability on the insurer.2. As per the case of the appellants, on 27.12.1980 at 11 p.m. in night Pradeep Kumar, son of appellants, aged 21 years, was going to verify about a commercial truck by riding on his Luna and when he reached near Karamchand Chowk, Jabalpur, a truck bearing registration No. CIJ 8242 suddenly came and dashed against Luna. Due to this collision Pradeep Kumar was seriousl...
Tag this Judgment!Mintoolal Brijmohandas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP205; 2006(1)ARBLR623(MP)
ORDER1. In this Civil Revision preferred under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Act, 1983 (for brevity 'the Act') the State of M.P. and its functionaries have called in question the pregnability and penetrability of the award passed by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in reference case of 55/91 where by the respondents has been awarded a sum of Rs. 91,306/- and interest (r) 12% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 51,300/- from the date of award till the realization of the amount.2. The respondent entered into a contract vide agreement No. 5 of 1979-80 dated 22-2-1980 for construction of R.C.C. Box for C.D. work at Ch. 134 of Pipariya Branch Canal along with Nallah training. The estimated cost of the tender was 2 lacs and tender costs of the works contract was 2.90 lacs. The period stipulated for completion of the contract was six months, including rainy season. The work order was issued on 22-2-1980 as per Exhibit P-l. Hence, the stipulated date for completion was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors. Vs. Cigarette Agencies
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPLJ25; [2006]144STC494(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the Commissioner of Sales Tax of State of M.P. and other functionaries of the aforesaid department have called in question the penetrability and tenability of the decision rendered by the learned single Judge in M.P. No. 271 of 1986.2. The facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner', was assessed to entry tax in Entry Tax Case No. 51/1980-81 relating to the period of August 11, 1980 to March 31, 1981 for a sum of Rs. 1,42,524 and Rs. 50,000 as penalty under Section 43(1) of the Entry Tax Act (M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Ahdhiniyum, 1976).3. The aforesaid order of assessment was affirmed by order dated November 26, 1984 in Revision Case No. 170/R/1984 by the revisional authority, Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur. It is not in dispute that ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hem Kumari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT14; 2005(2)MPLJ81
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a widow of Late Tejilal who was working under the Director General, Army Ordnance Crops, New Delhi, as Soobedar attained the age of superannuation on 30-6-1984. He was getting his pension till June, 2002. As misfortune would have it he breathed his last on 8-7-2002. After the death of her husband she intimated this aspect to the Senior Record Officer, Army Ordnance Crops Record, the respondent No. 3 herein in August, 2002. He fulfilled all formalities that were necessary for family pension. When the matters stood thus on 23-7-2003 the Competent Authority sent a letter indicating that the petitioner was not entitled to the family pension.2. According to the writ petition her husband Late Tejilal has severed his connection with his first wife Smt. Saraswati Bai who had remarried to another person, namely, Narayan Prasad and intimation thereof had already been given to the Chief Ordnance Officer, Depot Talegaon, Dabhadi by the Secretary, Zila Saini...
Tag this Judgment!Surbhi Chhabra Vs. Amar Chhabra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC421; 2005(1)MPLJ20
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to non-applicant No. 1, under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the non-applicant No. 1 Amar Chhabra was married with the applicant Smt. Surbhi Chhabra on 20.1.2003. The applicant lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Indore and on the basis of the said complaint First Information Report No. 105/04 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506, Indian Penal Code. The non-applicant was arrested by the Mahila Police and, thereafter, produced him before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore on 1.10.2004. The non-applicant No. 1 filed an application for grant of regular bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Along with the application, he had also filed a medical certificate of his father Arvind Chhabra which was disclosing that he was advised for taking rest. After hearing the p...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumar Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPLJ352; (2007)6VST412(MP)
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of W.P. No. 280 of 1998 as a common question of law involves in both cases.2. A short but an interesting point is involved in both these cases. The question is what would be the rate of sales tax payable on the sale of coal ash (cinders). The assessment period is from October 1,1987 to September 30, 1988.3. Petitioner, a registered dealer under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act'), carries on business of manufacture and sale of textile items. It has a factory located in industrial area now at Dewas. Petitioner purchased coal for use in the factory. That coal is burnt in the boiler and half burnt coal in the form of 'coal ash' is discharged from the boiler. The petitioner sold the coal ash. The controversy is what would be the rate of tax payable on the sale of the coal ash. According to the petitioner the sales tax is payable at the rate of four per cent under entry 1 of Part IV of Sched...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »