Madhya Pradesh Court April 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 India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahendrasingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC927; 2006ACJ120
P.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is an appeal by insurance company. The claimant, R-l, has filed a motor accident claim against Gangaram, R-2, Narsingh, R-3 and the insurance company, the appellant, on being injured in an accident with minibus No. MP 09-S 2855. Gangaram, R-2 and Narsingh, R-3, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have not contested the claim. They had not filed even their written statements. The Claims Tribunal below has awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from date of claim, i.e., 4.1.1999 against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and the appellant.2. As per appellant, a cover note, Exh. D-l, was issued on 31.7.1998 insuring the vehicle for one year. However, cheque issued for Rs. 8,954, Exh. D-6, on record was dishonoured vide Exh. D-5 and was returned to insurance company vide Exh. D-7 whereupon the insurance company had issued a letter Exh. D-8 to Gangaram, R-2, cancelling the insurance policy from the very inception and, th...
Shosherbai and anr. Vs. Balmukund (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004MP171; 2004(3)MPHT274; 2004(2)MPLJ469
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, challenging judgment and decree dated 19-10-84, passed by Addl. District Judge, Neemuch to the Court of District Judge, Mandsaur in C.A. No. 27-Aof 70, where by the Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 9-5-70 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Neemuch in C.S. No. 95-A of 66.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration of his title and injunction alleging that the suit property was owned by Sevaji. Sevaji died in Samvat 1993, leaving behind three sons-- Devram, Balmukund and Prabhulal. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 are heirs of Devram. Prabhulal is plaintiff No. 5 and Balmukund is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff has alleged that there was a partition between the three brothers and in spite of the said partition the defendant Balmukund is inter-ferring in their possession and is claiming partition of the property.3. The defendant filed his writ...
Khushi Lal Vs. Ramchand Motwani and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT169
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The defendant has assailed the order dated 23-10-2003 by which the Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Original Suit No. 3-A/2003 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner engaged Shri Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate who filed written statement on behalf of the petitioner on 18-6-2003. It is stated that in the aforesaid written statement, petitioner made various admissions of the plaint. It is also alleged that aforesaid written statement was got prepared by plaintiff through his Counsel of Indore and the facts stated in the written statement were not in the knowledge of the petitioner and without knowledge and consent, the written statement was got signed by the Counsel. Immediately on knowledge on 20th June, 2003, petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court for rejection of the written statement. As there was no provision in this regard, s...
Smt. Sushela Sen Vs. Smt. Geeta Shrivas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT68
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 1-9-2003 passed by District Judge, Bhopal in M.A. No. 26/2003 affirming the order dated 28-2-2003 passed by the third Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in MJC No. 47/2002 granting succession certificate to respondents Smt. Geeta Shrivas and Harshit Shrivas.2. Late Mahesh Kumar Shrivas was an employee of the State Government and died on 28-3-2002. The dues from the State government accordingly ought to be realized. Respondents Smt. Geeta Shrivas and Harshit Shrivas filed application under Section 372 of Succession Act before the 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal stating- inter alia that respondent Smt. Geeta Shrivas was married to late Mahesh Kumar on 20-2-77 and from the wedlock, respondent Harshit shrivas was born on 6-1-84. Petitioner Sushila Sen is widow of late Balaram Sen. The petitioner since was working at the residence of Mahesh Kumar Shrivas as maid servant, has been projected by the respo...
Om Travels Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)57
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of respondent No. 2, who has attached the bank account for recovery of the income-tax due against the petitioner in continuation to the assessment order passed by respondent No. 2, against which appeal is pending before respondent No. 4.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal is having only Circuit Court at Jabalpur and is not regularly functioning at Jabalpur, though the petitioner has filed appeal before the Tribunal, but it could not be heard on the stay application and in the meantime, respondent No. 2 has proceeded to recover the amount by attaching the bank account of the petitioner in the bank of respondent No. 3. Previously, petitioner deposited Rs. 50,000 with respondent No. 2. On depositing the aforesaid amount, respondent No. 2 released the bank account on 1st April, 2003 vide Annex. P-5, but presently, without awaiting the decision in appeal, the respondent No. 2 has proceeded t...
Subhash Chandra and ors. Vs. Smt. Manjula and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP72; 2004(3)MPHT159; 2004(2)MPLJ557
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 23-12-85 passed by 5th Addl. District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 251/84 which was preferred by the appellant plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 14-3-84 passed by 7th Civil Judge, Class I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 124-A/81.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession and damages against the respondent alleging that the plaintiff is owner of agricultural land situated at Village Chitwana having an area of 22 acres and 68 decimal. He has entered into an agreement to sale the said land with the respondents for Rs. 40,000/- vide agreement Ex. P-1, dated 7-6-76. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 21,000/- was paid at the time of agreement and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 19,000/- shall be paid at the time of execution of registered document. The possession of the land was also handed over to the ...
Mohan Lal Marco Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT59; 2004(4)MPLJ461
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, dated 3-12-2003, by which, the petition, challenging the no confidence motion passed against him, has been dismissed.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was President of Janpad Panchayat, Niwas. A no confidence motion was moved against the petitioner. The notice was served on the prescribed authority, who is the Collector, Mandla to convene the meeting to consider the no confidence motion. The Collector on receiving the notice under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Niyam' for short), and after satisfying himself about the admissibility of notice fixed a date, time and place for the meeting of Janpad Panchayat to consider the no confidenc...
Aman Education Society Vs. Nagar Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP74; 2005(1)MPHT421; 2005(1)MPLJ91
ORDERS.K. Pande, J. 1. The revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 19-11-2001 passed by V ADJ, Bhopal in M.A. No. 3/2000.2. On 18-10-99 the petitioner submitted application for permission to make construction on land khasra No. 26 area 2.83 acres situated at Kohefija, Bhopal. Since respondent Corporation did not refuse permission within 30 days and hence permission deemed to have been granted under Section 295(3) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act'), the petitioner in February, 2000 started construction work according to the map submitted vide application dated 18-10-99. On 7-6-2000 the Engineering Department of the respondent Corporation served a notice under Section 307 (2) of the Act requiring the petitioner to demolish the said construction. The notice was duly replied by the petitioner, but the respondent threatened to demolish the construction if the same has not been demolished by 13-6-2000. Against the said notice the p...
Paribai Vs. Bhagwanlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT488; 2004(3)MPLJ44
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 10-8-87 passed by Addl. District Judge. Indore in civil regular appeal No. 26-A/87 whereby the First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 8-4-85 passed by 5th Civil Judge Class II, Indore in Civil Original Suit No. 267-A/75.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff had filed the present suit for declaration, partition, possession and mesne profit alleging that she is a widow of Kanhaiyalal. Kanhaiyalal had three brothers namely Dattu, Mukund and Balwant. Defendant No. 1 Sukhram is the son of Dattu, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Ranchor and Moolchand are sons of Mukund and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are sons of Baiwant. According to the plaintiff the four brothers owned an agricultural land having an area of 74.58 acres. The husband of the plaintiff Kanhaiyalal died somewhere in the year 1930-31. At that time Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1931 was in f...
Sewaram Takhtani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(MP)441; [2004]270ITR509(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern disposal of other connected writ petitions being WP Nos. 9430, 9437, 9472, 9473, 9474, 9492, 9493, 9494, 9534, 9535 of 2003 and 203 of 2004, as in all these writs, common question of law is involved.2. The short question that arises for consideration in these petitions is, whether respondent No. 1--Asstt. CIT, Range 2(1) Indore was justified in invoking the powers conferred under Section 142(2A) of the IT Act for getting the accounts of the assessee, i.e., petitioner, audited from an accountant as defined in Explanation below Sub-section (2) of Section 288? In other words, the short question that arises for consideration is, whether in the facts of this case, a direction to get the accounts audited from an accountant was called for? If the contention of the petitioner is that it was not called for because none of the conditions specified in Section 142(2A) ibid were present in this case so as to entitle the AO (Asses...