Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Ranjit Narayan Vs. Laxmanbhai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT64; 2005(1)MPLJ297
P.C. Agarwal, J.1. Appellant on 21-3-1973 filed a civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent. Initially, ground taken was one under Section 12(1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) that is for non-payment of arrears of rent despite service of demand notice hut that ground was given up during the trial. A fresh ground under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act that is dis-claimer of title by tenant was added by way of amendment. However, such ground for eviction did not find favour either of the Courts below.2. Admittedly, the respondent had executed a rent note (Ex. P-1) on 18-2-1966 in favour of the appellant. The respondent continued to pay rent to the appellant up till 31-1-1972. As per respondent Vijay Narayan Haksar, the brother of appellant had served a notice (Ex. D-2) claiming payment of rent from him on the ground that the suit shop had fallen in his share in partition with a copy of judgment of this Court in F.A. No. 9/1964 (Vijay Narayan Ha...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Daya Prasad Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP98; 2005(2)MPHT75; 2005(1)MPLJ587
S.L. Jain, J.1. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-3-2003, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 11-B/2002, the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Plaintiff/appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India filed a suit against the respondent on 30-9-99 for recovery of Rs. 1,69,777.40. The learned Trial Judge held that the appellant-Corporation has been able to establish its claim, yet it disallowed the interest and cost on the ground that Reserve Bank of India has issued instruction to Banks and Financial Institutions for giving relaxation in the payment of outstanding dues. The Trial Court also held that the appellant-Corporation was not entitled to interest for the period 13-7-2000 to 16-3-2002, i.e., the date of dismissal of the suit in default and the date of its restoration, respectively. The Trial Court disallowed the cost of the suit.3. Learned ...
Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Employees' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR616]; (2005)ILLJ482MP
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern the disposal of other three appeals being M.A. Nos. 388, 489 and 730 of 1997 because all the appeals arise between the same parties and involve identical points.2. This is an appeal filed by the employer under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short called 'Act') against an order dated April 10, 1977, passed by Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ujjain under the provisions of Section 75 of the Act.3. In short and substance, the question raised before the lower Tribunal in Section 75 proceedings was whether overtime amount paid by the employer (appellant herein) is a part of wage as defined under Section 2(22) of the Act. In other words, the question that arises for consideration in the case is, whether the overtime can be regarded as wage under Section 2(22) of the Act. The Tribunal i. e. Labour Court by impugned order held it to be so and decided this issue against the appellant. In other w...
Surendra Singh and Chintu Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT197; 2004(3)MPLJ15
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge, Guna in Special Sessions Trial No. 2/99, dated 21-7-2000, the appellants have knocked the door of this Court by preferring an appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 30-4-99 at 13.00 hours, Shri S.R. Pawar, Sub-Inspector serving in the office of Narcotic Commissioner, Gwalior, received information from the informant that two persons namely Kalya and Chintu are carrying illegal business of opium at Dehari Dhaba (restaurant) at Ruthial - Guna Road and if on 1-5-99 in between 7.30 and 8.30 in the morning the raid is made, opium may be seized. On the basis of this information, the Sub-Inspector recorded the relevant entry under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') and forwarded the same to the higher officer.3. On 1-5-1999, the party of Central Narc...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(MP)212; [2005]272ITR33(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 23rd Sept., 2003, passed by ITAT (for short called Tribunal) in case No. MA/99/Ind/2003--20/Ind/2003 arising out of two appeals 1/Ind/1995 and 2/Ind/1996 relating to asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94.2. In fact, the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal at the instance of assessee (MPFC) who had made an application under Section 254(2) of the Act for rectification of the main order passed in two appeals filed by the assessee and decided on 10th Feb., 1999.3. By impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the application made by the assessee seeking rectification in the main appellate order and substituted para 7 of the appellate order as follows :'7. We, however, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, : [2003]259ITR51(SC) relied upon by the learned Authorised...
Anjani Prasad Tiwari Vs. Gayatri Gupta and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ390
S.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 19.12.2001 passed by M.A.C.T., Umariya in M.C.C. No. 63 of 1999.2. Petitioner Anjani Prasad Tiwari is the registered owner of jeep No. MP 18-2567. The said jeep has been insured by the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. On 24.7.1999 respondent Raju was driving the jeep and in a motor accident the claimantrespondent Gayatri Gupta sustained injuries. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. The application aforesaid has been resisted by the petitioner stating, inter alia, that he left his jeep in the garage for repairing and on the same day at about 4.30 p.m. respondent No. 2 Raju Prasad Dubey, who used to work as a mechanic in the garage, took the jeep for trial and carried some passengers. The Tribunal below vide impugned award dated 19.12.2001 held that the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is not liable to pa...
Gyan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT93; 2004(3)MPLJ61
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court holding the civil suit to be not maintainable, the plaintiff has knocked the door of this Court by preferring an appeal under Section 100 of CPC.2. No exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that a suit under Section 11 (5) of M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') was filed by the plaintiff. Averments of the plaint were denied by the defendants by filing their separate written statement. The learned Trial Judge after framing issues and recording the evidence came to hold that there is merit in the case of the plaintiff and eventually decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred by the State of M.P., before First Appellate Court which was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, this ap...
Vishnu Sharan and ors. Vs. Ajuddhibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004MP250; 2004(3)MPHT193; 2004(3)MPLJ25
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The defendants have preferred this appeal against judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court decreeing the suit for the plaintiffs for declaration, injunction and possession.2. Original plaintiff is Sangram Singh whose legal representatives are respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Sangram Singh filed a suit on the basis of title that he is the Bhumiswami of survey No. 56 area 40 Bighas of Village Muhasa, Tehsil Pichhore. According to him, out of 40 Bighas and area 5.16 acres is the disputed land. According to the plaintiff on 3-8-1968, the defendants by removing mound (merh) between survey Nos. 56 and 57 took possession of the disputed land, hence, present suit has been filed.3. The defendants by filing their written statement denied the plaint averments. It has been specifically denied by them that plaintiff is the Bhumiswami of survey No. 56, they also pleaded that the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded the sou...
Smt. Urmila and ors. Vs. Bhogiram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT292; 2004(3)MPLJ289
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by Ist Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction.2. Plaintiff Bhogiram who is respondent in this appeal, filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging that the land in question was purchased by him in the year 1976 from Mahant Bhagwat Das and obtained possession. Thereafter, the plaintiff raised construction and built a house on a portion of the land and the rest portion has been kept open. The defendants by taking law in their hands are trying to take possession of open land of plaintiff and is trying to dispossess him, hence, the suit has been filed for declaration and injunction.3. The defendants denied plaint averments. According to them, Mahant Bhagwat was not the owner of the land nor he was possessing the same. The suit land has not been alienated by registered sa...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Rekha and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT283; 2004(3)MPLJ291
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurer the New India Assurance Company Ltd., aggrieved by award dated 5-8-2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhatarpur in Claim Case No. 30/2002 awarding an amount of Rs. 5,66,000/- along with interest and costs on account of death of Shri Santosh Sahu.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 have filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 19,73,000/- on account of death of Santosh Sahu. He was the husband of Smt. Rekha/respondent No. 1. He used to carry the business of retain at various places. He used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month. He met with an accident with Commander Jeep No. MP16D-0089 driven by respondent No. 8 Ajiz Khan, Deceased was on his Bajaj M-80 vehicle.3. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9/driver and owner in their written statement denied that jeep was driven in rash and negligent manner. Jeep was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. The compensation, if any, is payable by the insurer.4. The Insurer in its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »