Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Bindra Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ranjan Pathak and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT225; 2004(4)MPLJ449
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made to an order (Annexure P-16), dated 20-5-2004 passed by the Court of VIIIth Addl. Distt. Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 27-A of 2004 dismissing the application under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC filed by the petitioner.2. By the said order (Annexure P-16), two applications filed by the petitioner, i.e., one for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC and another under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC have been rejected. So far as this petition is concerned, challenge is only made to part of the order rejecting the application under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is an incorporated Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the business of building construction and development work.3. There is situated a property bearing Municipal No. 11/6 at Jamadar Khana, Darjioli, Madho Ganj, Lashker, Gwalior. The said property was ow...
Asha Ram Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP58; 2004(4)MPLJ445
1. Preliminary objection is raised on the maintainability of this appeal by the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that the order passed by the single Bench is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In support of their contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786, Asrumati Debi v. Kumar Rupendra Deb, Rajkot, AIR 1953 SC 198, Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini, 2003 (10) SCC 691 : (AIR 2003 SC 4244) and Satish Trading Company v. Divisional Manager, P. P. Khare, Indore Telephones, 1999 (1) Jab LJ 217. Reliance has also been made on the unreported judgments of this Court in the case of M/s. Shree Om Agroil Private Limited v. M. P. Electricity Board decided in L.P.A. 222/2000 on 7-5-2004 and in the matter of M/s. Gwalior Synthetics Private Limited v. M. P. Electricity Board decided in LPA 281/1996 on 11-5-1996. Counsel for appellant place...
Viran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT220
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to as *the accused') has called in question the soundness of the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No. 675/2001 whereby he has recorded a conviction against the accused in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment of ten days on the first count and fine of Rs. l.000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment often days on the second score.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17-5-2001 in the mid afternoon the father-in-law of the deceased was in his paddy field and the buffalos of the accused entered inside the field and caused damages. Ramvati (P.W. 4), tried to drive away the said animals and at that stage the accuse...
indore Wire Company Ltd. Vs. Cestat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(183)ELT137(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an appellate Order dated 12-3-2004 (Annexure P-15), passed by Tribunal (CE & STAT) in Appeal No. E/1847/87-B whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. Heard Shri GM Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sanjeev Kohli, learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. At the outset, I may observe that having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having carefully gone through the well reasoned Order passed by the Tribunal. I unable to notice any infirmity in the impugned appellate Order passed by the Tribunal. It is for this reason I need not repeat the entire facts in detail again in my Order to avoid repetition of same facts. Indeed the issue regarding applicability of one particular tariff entry having been properly decided with reference to stand taken by the petitioner and the factual material brought on record, there arise no occasion to int...
Cit Vs. Alankar Tiles
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(MP)647; [2005]272ITR447(MP); [2005]272ITR447(MP)
This is an appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the revenue against M. A. Nos. 46, 47 and 48/Ind of 2003, which arises out of I.T.A. Nos. 164, 626 and 627/Ind of 1997.2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the application of the assessee seeking rectification of the main order passed by the Tribunal in appeal and has accordingly recalled the main order on the ground that the assessee was not found to be served the notice of the appeal before the appeal was finally heard and decided against them. The Tribunal went into this question and confirmed that the notice of the appeal was not properly served on the assessee and, therefore, by the impugned order, the main order passed in appeal was recalled on payment of Rs. 1,000 by way of costs to be paid by an assessee and the appeals were accordingly set down for final hearing after affording an opportunity to the assessee.3. It is against this order that the revenue has felt aggrieved and filed this app...
Dinesh Vs. Kaluram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC349; 2006ACJ608
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This is a claimant's appeal against the judgment and award dated 22.7.2003 in Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 112 of 2003 file of the 13th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore.2. The claimant-appellant sustained injuries including fracture of right hip and fracture of left ankle joint in a motor accident on 23.6.1998. The treatment required two surgeries also, one for insertion of a steel rod and another for its removal. He was hospitalized twice that is 7 days on the first occasion and 4 days on the second occasion. The appellant alleged that he is an agriculturist and also running a dairy, earning Rs. 5,000 per month and that on account of permanent disability, caused by the injuries, his earning has been affected. He has filed certificate issued by Dr. Sarda showing a permanent disability of the limb as 42 per cent. The claimant filed the said claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.3. The claimant was treated by Dr. Anil Kumar Jinsiwale. He di...
Mahendra Kumar and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT77; 2004(4)MPLJ100
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 12-12-1997 passed in O.A. No. 86/97 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench.2. Briefly stated, the appellant dispatched 45 bags of raw mangoes booked on 24-7-1996 Ex Nizamuddin to Bhopal. As per the appellant the consignment reached the destination after considerable delay, as a result of which the raw mangoes were totally damaged and foul smell was emitting out. The appellant took the delivery of goods but the contents being badly damaged, rotten and unfit for human consumption he left the consignment in the premises of the Railway administration.3. The appellant vide notice dated 20-8-1996 claimed compensation of Rs. 24,900/- towards damages and loss sustained by him. Since the compensation was not paid he filed an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench Bhopal. The Claims Tribunal issued notice to the respondent. ...
Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(174)ELT17(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge an Order No. A/301/03/NB (SM), dated 18-2-2003 (Ann.-P/1), passed by the CEGAT in Appeal Nos. E/2382/01-NB (SM), E/Co/131/02, E/Co/323/02-NB (SM), which in turn arise out of an order passed in Appeal No. 413-CE/BPL/2001, dated 22-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal.2. Heard Shri R. Nair, L.C. for petitioner and Shri T.N. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for respondents.3. In view of the order that I propose to pass, I do not wish to burden my order with the detailed facts. In my opinion, it is not necessary to narrate them. It is also for the reason that short point is involved in the petitioner namely whether the Tribunal should have granted an adjournment to the petitioner on 18-2-2003 for arguing the appeal on merits or not? According to learned Counsel it was a fit case where an adjournment prayed for by the petitioner (respondent in appeal before the CEGAT) ought to have been granted in the larger ...
Rewaram and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT85; 2004(4)MPLJ351
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. Heard on admission. Admit.With the consent of the parties, the revision is heard finally.The applicants have filed this revision against the impugned order dated 14-7-2004 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Cr.R. No. 75/2004, whereby allowed the revision and ordered for registration of offence against the applicants under Section 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), thereby setting aside the order passed by JMFC, Maheshwar, District Khargone in Private Complaint Case No. 94/2004 on 10-3-2004.2. The non-applicant No. 2 has filed the complaint against the applicants for the offences under Sections 294, 504, 323, 506-11 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act. The learned Trial Court, alter recording the statement of complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.PC and also called the police repor...
Rekha Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC151; 2005(1)MPHT445
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant for recalling the order dated 31.10.2003 passed by this Court in Misc. Cr. Case No. 3541/03 whereby this Court has quashed the entire proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kasrawad in Cr. Case No. 415/96 relating to the complaint lodged by the applicant Rekha and her sister Sandhya against the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 9.2. Necessary and relevant facts of the case for disposal of this petition are that the applicant Rekha and non-applicant No. 10 Smt. Sandhya are the real sisters and both were married with Omprakash and Chandrakant, both of them are real brothers. After their marriage, there was a dispute between both the spouses and both sisters namely, Rekha and Sandhya lodged a joint report {criminal complaint) before the Police Station, Kasrawad on 29.7.1996 on the basis of which Crime No. 267/96 was registered under Sections ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »