Madhya Pradesh Court March 2004 Judgments
Aditya Shrivastava Vs. Asha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT483; 2004(2)MPLJ175
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. An order passed by the Court below upon an application filed under Section 25(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'), has been challenged in this appeal by the appellant under Section 28 of the Act.2. The undisputed facts are that a divorce decree was passed on 22-12-1995. The parties are having two daughters namely Shweta and Deepshikha. In the judgment of divorce it was directed to the appellant that he would pay Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent and two daughters. Out of this amount Rs. 500/- was fixed for the wife and Rs. 500/- were equally distributed i.e. Rs. 250/- each for maintenance of the daughters namely Shweta and Deepshika. An application was submitted in the Court below for enhancement of maintenance amount on account of escalation in the price index as well as the daughters are growing up and for their studies, as the amount of maintenance which was passed earlier has now become quite inadequate. According to the respondent, appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Hotam Singh and ors. Vs. Sewaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT379; 2004(3)MPLJ72
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court and affirmed by the Single Bench of this Court.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Sewaram filed a civil suit for declaration of his title and possession. He claimed that the property in the suit marked as 'A B C D' attached to the plaint is the disputed property and is owned jointly by him and defendant No. 4 Ramratan. Suit was filed on 2-14985. Lateron by order dated 8-9-1994 Ramratan was transposed as plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs land over which house is constructed belonged to Lalaram maternal grand- father of Ramratan plaintiff No. 2. Lalaram gifted the property to Ratanlal by executing registered gift deed (Ex. P-1) on 4-11-1938. On 24-7-1946 Ratanlal's mother Bhagwatibai and Jagannath, Ratanlal's uncle (father's elder brother) jointly sold the property for a consideration of Rs. 4000/- vide sale deed, Ex. D-1. Property was repurchased in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kumar JaIn Vs. TazuddIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC79; 2004ACJ1191; AIR2004MP212; (2005)ILLJ507MP; 2004(2)MPHT386; 2004(2)MPLJ472
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. This is a reference by the Division Bench on the following question on account of conflicting decisions between two Division Benches of this Court :--'Whether the fracture of bones in a motor accident can be called privation of any member or joint and whether fracture of a bone simpliciter (without there being any permanent impairment or any weakness of body on account of it), would amount to a permanent disability within the meaning of 'permanent disability' defined under Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?'2. Section 142 of the Act is reproduced below :--Permanent disablement.-- For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in subsection (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving-(a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; ...
Tag this Judgment!Rambihari and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT430
1. Appellants Rambihari, Ramswarup and Devideen have been convicted under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under Section 120B Indian Penal Code and awarded the same punishment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Appellant No. 2 Ramswarup has died during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, his appeal has abated.2. The prosecution case was that in the intervening night of 15th and 16th March, 1987 accused Rambihari, Ramswarup, Kallu and Devideen committed murder of Ghuram in furtherance of their common intention after hatching a conspiracy. On that night Goli and Sullu were also done to death by the accused persons to take revenge of the murder of Manku, father of accused Rambihari and Ramswarup. It is also the prosecution case that Ghuram was meted out the same treatment by the accused persons so that later on he may not avenge the death of his father Goli. It has been stated during the cour...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Singh Wallia Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2004MP153; 2005(2)MPLJ2
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dismissing his suit passed by trial Court has preferred this appeal Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The facts necessary far the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and prohibitory injunction on the averments that the construction made by him was in accordance with the permission granted by respondent and the notice dated 24-4-1989 issued by respondent is illegal, null and void and without authority. It has been further prayed by him that the defendant be restrained by a decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the authorities of defendant from causing any demolition of plaintiffs building or any part of it existing on the Plot No. Z-14 in Zone-1 in Maharana Pratap Nagar, Habibganj Road, Bhopal. The plaintiff, in para 3 of his plaint pleaded that the notice is illegal, null and void and inoperative for the following reasons :(a) The ...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh and ors. Vs. Smt. Dauja and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP45; 2004(3)MPHT389; 2004(3)MPLJ298
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging judgment and decree dated 16-7-96 passed by Addl. District Judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind in Civil Appeal No. 134/92 whereby he has confirmed judgment and decree dated 13-5-88 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Gohad in Civil suit No. 120-A/86.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for cancelling the mutation in the name of defendants.3. This appeal is admitted by this Court on 18-2-2002 on following substantial questions of law :--'Have the Courts below before passing of the impugned decree not adverted to the fact that various minors, as appellants were then, were not properly represented by a guardian ad litem and in first appeal by a properly authorised next friend ?'4. The gist of the question is whether the judgment and decree passed by two Courts below is vitiated as some of the defendants were minors, who are now the appellants were not properly repres...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pure Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)73; [2004]270ITR382(MP)
1. Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Smt. Sonali Gupta for the appellant.2. Heard on admission. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is at the instance of the Revenue against an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 16/Ind of 1997 for the assessment year 1993-94 decided on May 23, 2003. The appeal before the Tribunal was also at the instance of the appellant-Revenue against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).3. A few facts material for deciding the said appeal, in short, may be mentioned as under : The respondent/assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical formulations. During the previous financial year, the assessee had paid total commission of Rs. 13,35,336. Out of, this, a sum of Rs. 10,24,290 was paid as commission on sales made to the Government and its agencies and a sum of Rs. 3,11,046, was paid as commission to non-...
Tag this Judgment!Kaluram Rathore Vs. Neelam Chand Kirar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC632
S.S. Jha, J.1. This is a reference by the Division Bench on the following question on Account of conflicting decisions between two Division Benches of this Court:Whether the fracture of bones in a motor Accident can be called privation of any member or joint and whether fracture of a bone simpliciter (without there being any permanent impairment or any weakness of body on Account of it), would amount to a permanent disability within the meaning of 'permanent disability' defined under Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?'2. Section 142 of the Act is reproduced below-Permanent disablement-For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an Accident of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the Accident, any injury or injuries involving:(a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or(b) destruct...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT287
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellants Vinod, Ballu alias Mohan and Pappu alias Ashok have been convicted under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. It is no longer in dispute that Meena, aged about 16 years, sister of accused Vinod, had eloped with deceased Vijay a few days before the incident of the present case. Vijay was arrested for the offence punishable under Section 366, Indian Penal Code.3. The prosecution case is that on 28-10-1989 at 8.25 A.M. there was grappling between deceased Vijay and accused Ballu and at that time accused Pappu dealt a lathi blow on the head of Vijay. Thereafter accused Vinod came on the spot with an axe and caused injuries to Vijay on his head with that axe. There was a repeated blow of the axe on the neck of the deceased by accused Vinod. The incident was witnessed by Prabhudayal (P.W. 1), Kamal (P.W. 2) and Vijay Singh (P.W. 9). The FIR (Ex. P-S) was lodged by Vijay Singh (P.W. 9) at 8.45 A.M. at Bina Police Station. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Jagdamba Polymeres Ltd. Vs. Neo-sack Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: [2004]53SCL307(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a company petition filed by petitioner under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, seeking winding up of the respondent company.2. The respondent is a company having its registered office at Dhar. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of tapes, fabrics, sack etc. in their Unit at Dhar. It is in the course of this day to day business activity, the petitioner claims to have done some job work as also sold certain goods to the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that they having done some job work and supplied goods, had raised the bills on the respondent totalling Rs. 6,14,404 but respondent has not paid the same. Eventually on 3-9-1999, the petitioner sent legal notice under Section 433/434 of the Companies Act to the respondent calling upon them to pay the outstanding dues which according to petitioner had become payable, but dispute receipt of the notice, the respondent failed to pay the same and hence, petition is filed against the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »