Madhya Pradesh Court June 2005 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Gokulchand and Sons and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: AIR2005MP201; 2005(4)MPHT145
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21 -7-2003 passed in MJC No. 31 2003 by District Judge, Ujjain, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for review of judgment and decree dated 31-1 -2003 passed by District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. l-B/2000 was allowed, the present.revision has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that respondents filed the suit for declaration and injunction towards illegal recovery of Central Excise Duty on the goods sold against the petitioner. The suit was opposed by the present petitioners on various grounds, including on the ground that the matter relates to recovery of excise under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Hence, in view of Ssection 11B(5). the Civil Court is having no jurisdiction. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. Learned Court below framed the issues and vide Judgment and decree dated 21-7-2003 dismissed the suit, on account of want of jurisdiction. Thereafter on 31-1 2003 an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Maya Kewat and ors. Vs. Sukram Dwivedi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT477; 2005(4)MPLJ29
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 22-12-2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sihora in Claim Case No. 5/03 whereby the claim petition of the appellants regarding vehicular death of their predecessor Kewat was dismissed.2. According to appellants on 29-12-2002 at about 6.45 p.m. husband of appellant No. 1 and father of remaining appellants namely kewat was coming back to home from Rampur, on the way he was subjected to an motor accident caused by Armada Jeep bearing No. M.P. 21-B-8208, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligental manner. The then respondent No. 2 was registered owner of this jeep while it was insured with respondent No. 3. The incident was reported to Police Station, Gosalpur and on completion of investigation respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted under Section 304A, IPC.3. Appellants filed claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with the pleading that deceased was working as mason and earning Rs. 5,00...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Bimalchand JaIn (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(MP)150; [2006]283ITR160(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.:1. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused record of the case, I am of the opinion that remedy of petitioner lies in filing appeal to Tribunal under Section 254 of the IT Act, against the impugned order dt. 31st March, 2005 (Annex. P-15), passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act. Admittedly, the impugned order is an appealable order and hence, the proper course open to petitioner in such case is to first appeal to Tribunal under Section 254 ibid and then file further appeal to this Court if occasion so arises under Section 260A of the Act. When the efficacious remedy of statutory appeal and then further statutory appeal is provided and the same can be availed of then, in that event, the writ Court should not exercise its extraordinary discretion in entertaining the writ for challenging the impugned order passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act. Even otherwise, looking to the nature of order, and the facts involved in the case, it woul...
Tag this Judgment!Guchchi Vs. Santosh Kumar Kaurav and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT296
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This revision seeks enhancement of punishment to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that though the respondents have been convicted under Section 393 read with Sections 397 and 304 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced under Section 393, IPC to R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 200/-, under Section 397, IPC to R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 304 read with Section 34, IPC to R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 200/-respectively, the sentences directed to run concurrently, the minimum sentence prescribed in Section 397 of IPC, has not been awarded.2. The grievance of the complainant is that sentence of five years awarded under Section 397 of IPC is below the minimum sentence of seven years prescribed and therefore, it deserves to be enhanced.3. The case of the prosecution against the respondents was that on 2-9-1998 at about 8.00 P.M. in Village Gardha in the farm-house of contractor Chhotelal, the accused persons acco...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Vs. Bhuriya @ Bhura Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC912
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 8.5.2004 passed by Second Additional Member, MACT, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 293/03, whereby a sum of Rs. 69,400/- along with 9% interest per annum has been awarded, the present appeal has been filed.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he has sustained permanent disability of 9% as there was fracture of femur bone in right leg of the appellant. It was alleged that in the similar circumstances, Divisional Bench of this Court has, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- where the claimant has suffered disability of 9%.3. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded Rs. 69,400/- is enhanced to Rs. 1 lac. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum.With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Vs. Modiram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC24
S.K. Gangele, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 15.3.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 5/00. By the aforesaid award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 73,000/-, Rs. 48,000/- for future loss of income; Rs. 12,000/- for medical expenses; Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 8,000/- on other heads.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the compensation is just and proper.3. It is clear from the evidence and findings of the Tribunal that the appellant claimant, who was a driver has serious fracture injuries in his leg. His leg has been broken and thereafter a plate was inserted in his leg and it was fitted with screws. The Tribunal has also observed on the basis of the evidence of the doctor that there was a plate at that time and it was fitted with screws. The Tribunal has further held that the claimant cannot...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim @ Kalu Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC69; 2006(2)MPLJ11
S.K. Gangele, J.1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 20th April, 2001 passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Kukshi, District Dhar, in Claim Case No. 6/1999.2. It is stated that the appellant was going from village Amlal to Kukshi on his bicycle on 21st October, 1999 when he was dashed by tractor No. FYA 0 4713 in the noon. He suffered serious injuries in the accident and was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter he filed the claim application before the Tribunal.3. The learned Claims Tribunal has held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and owner, driver and the Insurance Company are liable for payment of compensation. The Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 58,500, Rs. 24,000 towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000 towards special diet and Rs. 4,500 for future loss of earning.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the c...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Laxmi Iron Industries Ltd. and Two ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT32; 2006(1)MPLJ188
Abhay Naik, J.1. This is an appeal by the M.P. Electricity Board (presently M.P.S.E.B.), against the judgment and decree dated 11-8-1989 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, dismissing thereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of Rs. 59,282.64.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the defendants entered into an agreement with the Electricity Board on 23-10-1974 for supply of electricity. The agreement was made effective on expiry of three months notice which was liable to be issued after the availability of supply of electricity. According to the plaintiff, a notice was issued on 1-4-1975 informing that the electricity was made available. The defendants did not avail the electricity. So, as per Clause 2 of the agreement, the defendants were liable to pay the monthly minimum charges. The bills were also raised on the defendants with effect from July, 1975 and the same were issued every month. The defendants did not pay the amount of minimum charg...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Jatav Vs. Ku. Roshani and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT364; 2006(1)MPLJ178
Abhay Naik, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 against the judgment dated 25-2-2004. The appellant has claimed the custody of his daughter Ku. Roshani from her maternal grandfather.2. The case of the appellant/applicant is that he is the natural father of Ku. Roshani and is in employment of Railways. It is submitted that wife of the applicant Smt. Batto Bai died on 29-11-1994. At that time Ku. Roshani was aged about one year. Looking to the infancy of Ku. Roshani at the time of death of her mother, she was permitted to reside with the non-applicant No. 2, who happened to be the father of Batto Bai. It is stated that Ku. Roshani was aged 8 years at the time of submitting the petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.3. The appellant has stated that he is staying at Jabalpur whereas, the respondent No. 2 is residing at Gadarwara. For the welfare of Ku. Roshani, it is contended that the same may be secured if the custody of Ku. R...
Tag this Judgment!Sanju @ Sanjay Ben Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT102
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order of externment dated 1-5-2004 and affirmation thereof by the Appellate Authority on 12-10-2004 and to pass such order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 31-3-2004 by the Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vide Annexure P-l indicating certain aspects which related to involvement of the petitioner in respect of certain crime with a further stipulation that an order of externment be passed against him as contemplated in M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 from the district Jabalpur and nearby districts, namely, Mandla, Dindori, Balaghat, Seoni, Narsinghpur, Chhindwara and Katni.3. The petitioner filed his show cause as pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »