Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Damodar and anr. Vs. Rajendrasingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ474
A.M. Sapre and Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ. 1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other appeals being M.A. Nos. 628, 722 and 766 of 2002 because all these appeals which are filed by the claimants arise out of one common award dated 21.11.2001 and secondly they also arise out of same accident.2. This is an appeal (M.A. No. 642 of 2002) filed by the claimant against an award dated 21.11.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 68 of 1999 by III M.A.C.T., Indore. By impugned award the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,500 to the claimants for the death of one Anil, who died at the age of 18 in a motor accident. According to the claimants, the award of Rs. 1,64,500 is on lower side and hence it needs to be enhanced. It is for this purpose, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement. So the question involved in this appeal is whether any case for enhancement is made out and if so to what extent?3. Heard Mr. Sameer Verma, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Dand...
Radhelal Basantkumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC666(MP)
ORDERDeepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ.1. This is an appeal intra court preferred Under Clause X of the Letters Patent. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge on February 14, 2003 in W.P. No. 212 of 2003 between the parties. The appellant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' since repealed). The appellant carries on business of commission agent. For the assessment year 1994-95, appellant was assessed to sales tax by the assessing officer and the assessment order was passed on June 30, 1998 (annexure P/7).2. Not satisfied with the assessment order, appellant preferred an appeal. That was allowed by the appellate authority by order dated November 10, 2000 and the assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded back for the fresh assessment. The assessing officer made fresh assessment by order dated June 27, 2001 (annexure P/14) and on the basis of th...
In Re: Eicher Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC564; [2005]57SCL414(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a Company Petition filed by the petitioner-Company called 'Eicher Motors Limited' (hereinafter referred to as 'Transferee Company or 'EML' for brevity) under Section 391 R/W Section 394 of the Companies Act for according sanction by this court for the scheme/arrangement embodied in the composite scheme of arrangement (Ex. 'G') entered into between the three companies viz., Eicher Limited (for short called 'EL', 'EML') and Malbros Investment Limited (for short called 'Malbros'). In terms of the scheme of arrangement which is essentially in the nature of merger/demerger of undertakings, it is proposed to transfer the Automobile undertaking of 'EL' to 'EML' and merger amalgamation of Malbros with EL. As stated supra the detailed terms/conditions of the proposed merger/demerger are set out in the scheme of amalgamation/composition in Ex. 'G'.2. The amalgamation/merger is sought essentially on the grounds, inter alia that it will facilitate synergies of the siz...
Yogendra Verma Vs. Dharmendra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT39; 2005(1)MPLJ118
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order, Annexure P-6, dated 12-2-2004 passed by the Court of Twelfth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gwalior by which petitioner has been directed to pay the proper stamp duty on the document (Annexure P-2), an agreement for sale in accordance with provisions of Article 23 to Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid direction given for affixing the stamp duty on the document is clearly unsustainable.2. Petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement for sale dated 9-8-2000 (Annexure P-2). Relief claimed by the petitioner in the suit is to direct the respondents to execute the sale deed in pursuance to the aforesaid agreement and to hand over possession of the property in question. It is the case of the petitioner that written statement was filed and in the written statement (Annexur...
Power Batteries Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ680MP
S.K. Seth, J.1. Present writ petition is directed against the award dated March 22, 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Indore. The relevant facts are as under:Respondent No. 3 was employed by the petitioner as Sales Representative. The pose of the contention of respondent No. 3 is whether the respondent No. 3 tendered resignation or was terminated from service. The respondent No. 3 raised a dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent No. 3 filed the statement of claim and petitioner filed their reply disputing the claim set up by the respondent No. 3. 2. Learned Labour Court after recording the evidence passed the impugned award -holding that the respondent No. 3 was employed as workman by the petitioner and he did not resign, therefore, his removal from service is bad in law. Learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 3 in service and pay him all the arrears of salary.3. L...
Alpine Industries Ltd. Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC284
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Heard on various interim applications/petitions, made by the parties viz. M(W) P. 334/04, I.A. 1982/04,1.A.2822/04, M(W)P. 465/05 and M(W)P. 469/04.2. On 12.5.2004, this Court while deciding the issue of grant of ad interim writ prayed for by the petitioner inter alia passed some directions. These directions are essentially meant for observance by the Hon'ble Members of AAIFR who are presently seized of an appeal filed, by the petitioner being appeal No. 236/2003 arising out of a case No. 458/2001, decided by the BIFR on 7.3.2003. It was not disputed that disposal of this appeal on merits by the AAIFR one way or the other has undoubtedly a material bearing over the controversy sought to be raised in this petition by the petitioner. Indeed this position was conceded to by the parties at the threshold of the hearing of this petition. It was essentially for this reason, the directions were required to be issued by this Court in the larger interest of the parties. The...
Lata Bai Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT485
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this revision preferred under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') by the informant, the assail is to the judgment of acquittal dated 29-7-2002 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the petitioner as prosecutrix set the criminal law in motion, as a result of which the accused/respondent No. 2 was charged under Sections 376 and 506B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC). It appears that the prosecutrix was a major and she lodged an FIR after the expiry of seven months of pregnancy. The learned Trial Judge took note of various facts including the consent given by the prosecutrix and the delay in lodging the FIR and eventually recorded the order of acquittal.2. Criticizing the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted by Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner that she became a victim of circumstances inasmuch as the a...
Ratan Deep Gupta and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT126; 2005(1)MPLJ149
1. Appellants were working as Assistant Grade III in various Janpad Panchayats in Shahdol district. Their cases were considered for promotion by a Selection Committee and they were promoted as Assistant Grade II-cum-Accountants on 14-3-1991. About 10 months thereafter, the second respondent passed an order dated 8-1-1992 directing cancellation of their promotions and reverting them as Assistant Grade III on the ground that the promotions violated Section 68 (1) of the M.P. Panchayat Act, 1990. The said order dated 8-1-1992 was challenged by the appellants in M.P. No. 196/92. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 7-8-2003 dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no infirmity in the said order dated 8-1-1992. The said order is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Section 63 (1) of the M.P. Panchayat Act, 1981 provides that every Panchayat may with the previous approval of the prescribed authority appoint such other officers and servants as it considers necessary for ...
Chahal and Company Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR557(MP); 2004(4)MPHT119; 2004(4)MPLJ301
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. These two appeals under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'the Act') have been preferred against the award dated 26-9-1997 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 11-B/86. The contractor has filed a separate appeal (M.A. No. 1489/97) against that part of the award by which the Court had declined and did not pass any order regarding the interest. The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed appeal (M.A. No. 4/98) against that part of the award by which the Court below had made rule of Court of the award passed by the arbitrator. Since the aforesaid two appeals have arisen from a common order passed by the Court below, they are being decided by this common order.2. A civil suit was filed by the contractor for the realization of non-payment of the amount due to him in the Court below and in that suit application by contractor, who was plaintiff, was submitted to refer the matter for redressal, to the arbitrator. That a...
Virendra Singh Baghel (Since Dead) Through His L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT517; 2004(3)MPLJ575
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This petition was originally filed in this Court on 18-3-1986 and was registered as Misc. Petition No. 1009/86, however, on the establishment of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, this petition was transferred and later on, on the abolition of the Tribunal again this petition has been received in this Court for adjudication.2. Though the relief which was sought at the initial stage was for appointment on the post of Ayurved Chiktsa Adhikari and for quashment of the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, however, on account of lapse of 18 years, learned Counsel for the petitioners are confining their relief to the limited extent as both the petitioners have been promoted during the pendency of this petition on the post of Ayurved Chiktsa Adhikari vide order dated 18-1-1994. Thus, in this backdrop it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the difference of wages be paid to them as well as their seniority may be fixed at proper ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »