Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Sushiladevi and ors. Vs. Sheetal Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004MP143; III(2004)BC490; 2004(2)MPHT453; 2004(3)MPLJ312
ORDER1. This order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 354/1996 (Sushiladevi and Ors. v. Bapulal Balkrishna and Ors.) and Misc. Appeal No. 366/1996 (Sushiladevi and Ors. v. Prahladrai Prakashchandra and Ors.), as they arise out of common order passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Necmuch, in Insolvency Cases Nos. 1/1980, 2/1980 and 3/1980, decided on 3-4-1996. Contesting parties appearing before us today, submitted that all the aforesaid three matters have been settled but looking to short but interesting question involved in these appeals, it is necessary to narrate factual matrix of the case.2. A firm M/s. Shrikrishna Oil Mill and Ginning Factory, was carrying on its business from Neemuch having two partners in the same namely; Harnarayan and Gopikishan. Both of them had share in the said partnership for profit and loss to the extent of fifty per cent each. It appears that said Firm ran into financial difficulties. It was not able to pay debts to its creditors. Three o...
Murlidhar Somani Vs. Mohanlal Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC419
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J.1. Applicant/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 9.1.2004 in Criminal Revision No. 23/2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Indore confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1262/2003 whereby the learned Trial Court has refused the permission to the applicant accused to adduce the further evidence in the defence.2. Respondent/complainant has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of he Cheque bearing No. 18379 for Rs. 3,40,000 alleged to have been given by the applicant on 13.2.2002 drawn on Indore Cloth Market Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sitlamata Branch, Indore. That the learned Trial Court has recorded the evidence of the complainant and the statement of the applicant accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 28.3.2003. Thereafter the case was fixed for the defence evidence on 3.5.2003. That on 26.12.2003 the acc...
Smt. Surendra Kaur Vs. Shamsher Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT359
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging award dated 23-10-2002 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 23/2002, whereby the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her. According to the claimant the accident has taken place at Village Banmore, District Morena on 23-2-2002 at about 11.00 A.M. The claim petition was filed at Gwalior alleging that she is a resident of 80, Laxmi Bai Colony, Gwalior. The Claims Tribunal issued notices to the parties. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as seven issues out of which issue No. 5 relates to territorial jurisdiction of the Clai...
JaIn Cycle Spares and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(MP)4; [2004]267ITR60(MP)
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition for seeking following directions against the respondents:(A) That this Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to stay the recovery proceedings till the disposal of first appeal pending before the CIT(A)-II, Jabalpur.(B) That the respondent No. 2 be kindly directed not to take any further coercive measures against the petitioner for recovery of tax demand against the assessment which is pending in appeal before the CIT(A)-II, Jabalpur.(C) That the respondents be further directed not to sell the shop attached by them by the order dt. 30th Jan., 2004 (Annex. P-11), till the disposal of first appeal pending before the respondent No. 3.(D) That the CIT(A)-II may kindly be directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously.(E) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be granted.(F) Cost of the petition.2. Contention of petitioner, is that against the assessment order An...
State of M.P. Vs. Punaji Dhurve
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT268
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for confirmation of sentence of death imposed upon accused Punaji for the offences punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for committing murder of six persons. He has also filed an appeal under Section 374, Cr.PC challenging his conviction under Sections 302 and 436, IPC. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of Re. 1/- for the offence punishable under Section 436, IPC. The reference and the appeal are being decided by this judgment.2. It is no longer in dispute that accused Punaji has a house in Village Juna Padhurna in a field. This house consists of two rooms as shown in the site plan (Ex. P-11). That has been more clearly described in the map annexed to the report (Ex. P-18) of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. Accused Punaji was living with his wife and four daughters in one room. The other room was in occupation of deceased Suresh. There was an...
Sheikh Vaheed and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1209
S.K. Pande, J.1. The A.S.J., Sehora in S.T. No. 662/95 vide impugned judgment dated 11-10-2001 recording conviction of accused/appellants under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and 7 years respectively and to pay fine Rs. one thousand, three thousand, in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of three months, six months. Being aggrieved, the accused/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.2. Admittedly, Jarina was legally married wife of accused/appellant Sheikh Vaheed. Accused/appellants Sheikh Raseed and Hamidan Bi respectively are brother and mother of accused/appellant Sheikh Vaheed. After marriage, late Jarina was living in the joint family of accused/appellants. Within four years of her marriage she died of extensive burns on 3-5-95. On information the Merg 53/95 was registered by the Police. Preparing Panchnama (Ex. P/7) the dead body was sent for post mortem. As per post mortem report (Ex. P/2) 3...
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1072
S.L. Jain, J.1. Appellants Rajkumar, Ramsahai and Savitri Devi who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, of deceased Janki Bai, by the impugned judgment and order dated 13-2-98, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 58/95, stand convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 306 of the IPC. They have been sentenced to R. I. for seven years each for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC and to R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The substantive sentences imposed under both the sections have been directed to run concurrently.2. The appellants had been charge-sheeted under Section 304B of the IPC for committing dowry death and under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting the commission of suicide by deceased Janki Bai. The death of Janki Bai is alleged to have occurred on 10-5-94 within 13 days of her marriage with appellant Rajkumar.3. I have h...
Bta Cellcom Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer-cum-additional Tehsilda ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: [2005]142STC133(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. In substance, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that they have questioned the legality and validity of the assessment orders passed by the assessing authorities under the Entry Tax Act in revision/appeal as provided under the Act and has also applied for stay of recovery of the impugned demand pending appeal/revision. Yet the authorities are insisting upon the petitioner to satisfy the demand without either passing any orders on the stay or hearing the matter on merits. It is also contended that even penalty orders have been passed and which are given effect to by taking recourse to coercive proceedings against the petitioner for realisation of dues. It is also contended that application made by the petitioner to Commissioner for stay of the recovery proceedings has not yielded any results. It is further contended that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case on legal issues on merits but the same is not being heard to get rid of the demand impug...
Alakh Sinha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT124; 2004(3)MPLJ505
Arun Mishra, J.1. In this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order (P-13) of his removal from service from the post of Civil Judge, Class-I.2. Petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge in the year 1983 and was promoted as Civil Judge Class-I in the year 1991. High Court of Madhya Pradesh initiated departmental enquiry as per memo (P-l). Charge-sheet (P-2) was issued containing 14 charges. Statement of imputation (P-3) and enquiry report (P-4) was submitted. Out of 14 charges, 11 charges related to lapse in judicial work. Petitioner filed a reply (P-5). Charge Nos. 7, 9 and 13 were also not proved. Charge No. 1 related to grant of interim injunction in violation of legal principles. Charge No. 2 is with respect to delay in deciding three cases. Charge No. 3 related to passing an order of discharge in a case under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and instead a charge under Section 326/149 was framed and petitioner proceeded with trial himself. Charge No. 4 rel...
Kamlakar Mahadevrao Patil and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT278; 2005(1)MPLJ177
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC the petitioners request to quash the proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 110/01 before the ASJ, Raisen arising out of judgment dated 5-12-01 passed by Additional CJM, Bareli in Criminal Case No. 287/96.2. Petitioner K.M. Patil and Mrs. Meera Patil were married on 10-2-85. They were posted in their employment at Badi Bareli (Raisen) and Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) respectively. Despite best efforts petitioner could not be posted at one place and as a result, marriage between petitioners had faced rough face and suffered from incompatibility. The relations got strained. Petitioner K.M. Patil filed C.S. No. 20-A/96 before II ADJ, Rajnandgaon for judicial separation. In the meanwhile petitioner Mrs. Meera Patil filed a report in the year 1995 at Police Station, Badi making allegations of dowry demand against the petitioner K.M. Patil while her stay with him in the year 1987-88. On the basis, the Police completing the investiga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »