Madhya Pradesh Court March 2005 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Emar Industries
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC502(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a sales tax reference made at the instance of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, under Section 44(10) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed), by the Board of Revenue in R.A. No. 76-PBR/91 which in turn arises out of an order dated March 25, 1991, passed in Appeal No. 201/3/86 to answer the following question of law:Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the stand of sewing machines is a part and parcel of such machines and whether it would be taxable at the same rate applicable to sewing machines ?2. Heard Shri Anand Pathak, Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant and Shri P.M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the non-applicant.3. The short question that arises for consideration in this sales tax reference is, whether 'stand of sewing machine' is a part and parcel of sewing machine so as to tax the same, i.e., 'stand' at the same rate which is applicable to sewing machine?4. In...
Someshwar Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1124]
N.K. Modi, J.1. Prayer in the petition is to quash the order dated 28.2.1998 (Annexure A-7) whereby the order dated 29-3-1994 (Annexure A-3) has been amended.Prayer in the petition is to quash the orders dated 28.2.1998 and 16.3.1998, whereby the order dated 29.3.1994 has, been amended and the order dated 2-1.3.1998 whereby the petitioner has been reinstated be quashed.2. Facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on 19.8.1987 on the post of Extra Temporary Warder (Praha). The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 22.3.1990. This order was challenged before the 'State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2011/90. Vide order dated 17.2.1994 passed by State Administrative Tribunal, the order dated 22.3.1990, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated, was quashed with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages. This order was challenged by the State Government. In compliance of this order, the order of appointment was ...
Mahila Gomabai and ors. Vs. Gajendra Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC557
ORDER1. This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Insurance Company has filed cross-objection praying therein that Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle as Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify passenger in goods carriage in the light of judgment of Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani III (2002) ACC 753 (SC) : VII (2002) CCR 91 (SC) : (2003) 2 SCC 223.2. This fact is not under dispute that the deceased was travelling in a truck which was registered as a goods carrier and the vehicle was insured and Insurance Company has covered the risk under the policy towards third party liability. Insurance risk is covered as per the Act. Therefore, in the light of Apex Court judgment in the case of New India Assurance (supra) Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, cross-objection of Insurance Company is and allowed it is held that Insurance Company is not li...
Tej Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT356; 2005(2)MPLJ31
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant-accused Tejsingh has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1997 and appellants-accused Bapu Singh and Arjun Singh have filed the Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1997 against the judgment and order dated 5-12-1996 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 89/1995 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, District Shajapur, of their conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC for the imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500.00, Rs. 500.00 and under Section 201 of the IPC for the rigorous imprisonment of 2-2 years and fine of Rs. 500.00 - Rs. 500.00, and in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3-3 months on each count.2. The prosecution case is that on 7-2-1995 at about 1.30 p.m. the information was received in the Police Station, Barod about the death of Shankarsingh and after recording the Merg, police went to the Village Kanakheda where from the Well the dead body of Shankarsingh was taken out. That the dead body was sent for the examination at Barod where Dr. ...
Balkrishna Vs. Madhusudan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT111
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. Arguments heard.2. In Execution Case No. 17-A/02, ADJ, Khurai vide order dated 31-8-2004 allowing application under Section 195, Cr.PC directed filing of complaint against the appellant under Sections 192, 198, 432, 464, 466, 469, 479, 120B, IPC. The present appeal is directed against the order aforesaid passed in Execution Case No. 17-A/02.3. Under Section 341, Cr.PC an appeal lies against the order said to have been passed by any Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 340, Cr.PC. The present appeal although one under Section 341 has been preferred as a Misc. Civil Appeal arising out of the impugned order dated 31-8-2004.4. In Sambhu Nath Sadhukhan v. Maghesh Kumar Sadhukhan and Ors., 1981 Cr.LJ 1102, it has been held :'It can not be said that since the power of the Civil Court under Section 476 or 476B emanates from the Code of Criminal Procedure it must be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is undoubtedly true that the power to entertain the ap...
Mahesh Vs. Sajid and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2441
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Applicants/complainant has filed the revision against the judgment dated 8-10-2004 in S.T. No. 85/ 2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barwaha, District Khargone against the acquittal of the respondent accused No. 1 to 5 in the case filed by respondent No. 6 State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The prosecution case is that on 23-10-2001 the prosecutrix Rekha aged about 18 years went to the house of her friend viz. Meenakshi where accused Sajid, Rupesh and Manoj forcibly committed the sexual intercourse with her. That on the next day on 30-10-2001 accused Goresh requested accused Kavita to persuade prosecutrix Rekha to allow him to have the sexual relationship with Rekha. That accused Kavita thereafter asked prosecutrix Rekha that she was raped yesterday and now she should allow accused Goresh to commit the sexual intercourse. That out of indignation Rekha consumed sulphas tablet. That she was shifted to the Hospital where she has narrated the incident to her pare...
Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2480
Awasthy, J. 1. Appellant-accused had filed the Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 1998 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') and State has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1997 under Section 377 of the Code and Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1997 under Section 378 of the Code against the judgment and order dated 30th October, 1996 in Special Case No. 69/1994 by learned Special Judge, Shajapur. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of I. P. C. for the life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000.00, in default, RI of 5 years, under Section 376(2)(f) of the I. P. C. for the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default, RI of 1 year and under Section 201 of the I. P. C. for the rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default, R. I. of 1 year. State has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1997 for enhancement of sentence and awarding the death sentence. The Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1997 is file...
Mukesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2784; 2005(3)MPHT195
1. Appellant - accused has filed the appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th February, 1997 in Sessions Trial No. 70/1996 delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Shajapur, of his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC for the imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000-00, in default further RI of 1 year.2. The prosecution case is that on 19-11-1995 at about 9.00 a.m. the accused Mukesh has inflicted the knife blows on the abdomen of Antarisingh and ran away towards the forest. The eye-witnesses of the incident were Mahendrasingh (PW-1), Mumtaz Bi (PW-2) and Mohan (PW-3). That Antarisingh died soon after the incident and the FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged in the police station by Mahendrasingh (PW-1). Station House Officer S. S. Choudhary (PW-11) prepared the Panchnama of the dead body Ex. P/5 and the autopsy was conducted by Dr. N. K. Rathore (PW-4) who has found 10 incised and penetrated wounds on the body of the deceased. After the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was fi...
Ramesh Verma Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT72
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition has assailed an order (P-l) dated 23-1-04 passed by the Industrial Court by which an order (P-3) dated 29-8-03 passed by the Labour Court has been reversed.2. The Labour Court has directed the reinstatement with 75% of the back wages. Appeal has been allowed on the short ground that petitioner Shri Ramesh Verma was in the employment at Betul Depot. He has filed an application in the Labour Court at Hoshangabad. On the ground of territorial jurisdiction of Hoshangabad, the Industrial Court has set aside the order.3. Petitioner has assailed the order (P-l) passed by the Industrial Court in this petition on the ground that there was no failure of justice caused to either party. Both the parties have adduced the evidence before Labour Court, thus, appeal ought not to have been allowed only in the technical plea. Labour Court has held that incumbent Depot Manager of Hoshangabad was incharge of Betul Depot also and the same person who w...
Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Kashiram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC246
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by claimant for enhancement of comepnsation.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15th February, 1993 appellant has hired a autorickshaw from Jiwaji Chowk, Lashkar to Pachasa Line bearing registration No. MKH-502. According to the claimant auto-rickshaw was driven in a rash and negligent manner and in a fast speed and the autorickshaw dashed against a standing jeep bearing No. MKH-7288 near Chhatri Mandi. On account of accident appellant suffered injuries in the left leg and fractures in the tibia and fibula bones. ' Incident occurred at 10.30 in the night. Appellant was admitted in J.A. Group of Hospital. Appellant was not satisfied with the treatment of J.A. Hospital then they went to the Nursing Home run by Dr. D.K. Gupta and he was admitted in the hospital from 17th Februrary, 1993 to 21st February, 1993 for about 5 days. He has stated that during this period his left leg was operated and iron plate was fixed. He was discharged from the Nursing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »