Skip to content

Madhya Pradesh Court January 2006 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.

Jan 12 2006

Nav Bharat Corporation Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-12-2006

Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT72; 2006(2)MPLJ306

Manjusha Namjoshi, J.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in Civil Suit No. 148-B/95 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Nav Bharat Corporation, Bombay, the defendant appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.2. It is not in dispute that appellant was duly authorized agent of the respondent to unload the goods imported by the plaintiff/respondent. The appellant was also authorized to send the goods to different places as directed by the plaintiff/respondent. It is also admitted that the appellant was to unload the goods at Port Bombay and other ports like Kandla, Calcutta, Madras and Cochin also.3. The case of the plaintiff in substance is as under :As per the directions of the plaintiff/non-applicant, the defendant/appellant out of 781.0706 MT of steel material imported through vessel Jiao Chung, 119 MT material was not delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff due to his gross negligence and wilful misc...


Jan 12 2006

Ranjeet Singh and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and anr.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-12-2006

Reported in: 2007ACJ1629

A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. These are all the appeals filed against the common award dated 21.1.1999 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vidisha in Claim Case Nos. 130, 131, 132, 150 and 157 of 1998 by the owner of the vehicle which met with the accident.2. The facts briefly are that appellant No. 1 is the owner of Tata 407 minibus bearing registration No. MP 04-F 1923. Nandlal, Ramesh, Bhagwan Singh, Raja-ram and Khemchand amongst others were travelling in the said vehicle on 29.4.1997 when the vehicle overturned on the road and in the said accident, Nandlal, Ramesh, Bhagwan Singh, Rajaram and Khemchand suffered injuries and they filed Claim Case Nos. 130, 131, 132, 150 and 157 of 1998. In the said claim cases, the appellants took a stand that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., on the other hand, took a plea that the vehicle was insured up to the midnight of 28.4.1997 and thereafter a fresh insurance po...


Jan 10 2006

Kusumchand Sharadchand and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-10-2006

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(MP)385a; [2006]286ITR370(MP); 2006(2)MPLJ18

ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment dt. 2nd Jan., 2002 passed by XlVth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 4/96, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the ACJM (Economic Offence), Indore in Criminal Case No. 21/1986 vide judgment dt. 22nd Dec, 1995 convicting applicant No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 276C read with Sections 278 and 277 and sentencing him to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 on each count. Applicant No. 1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 276C and Section 277 read with Section 278B of IT Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 on each count.2. The facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are that applicant No. 1 was a partnership firm during the relevant period, namely asst. yr. 1975-76 and the relevant accounting period from Diwali 1973 to Diwali 1974. After this period the firm was dissolved. I...


Jan 10 2006

State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Gwalior Rice Products and ors.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-10-2006

Reported in: 2007(1)MPLJ191

P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 09.02.2000 passed by District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/1988, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and made the award rule of the court.2. Brief facts of the case are that a plot admeasuring 23,805 sq.ft. was given on lease to the respondent for 99 years vide order dated 07.10.1978. Thereafter, lease deed was executed vide lease deed dated 26.10.1978 and possession of the land was given to the respondents. The respondents had established a factory known as Gwalior Rice Products after taking financial assistance of Rs. 2,08,000 from Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation Limited. The respondents failed to make the payment of instalments on loan and interest and hence the Corporation took over all the building, plant and machinery in exercise of the power conferred under Section 29 of the State Financial ...


Jan 10 2006

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. Vs. ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-10-2006

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR698]; 2006(1)MPLJ519

ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 82 of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the appellants have filed this appeal challenging the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated February 2, 1998, passed by Employees State Insurance Court, Satna (henceforth the 'ESI Court') in Case No. 1/ESI Act/91.2. The facts leading to this appeal lie in a narrow compass.The appellant No. 3, who is a local Manager of ESI Corporation, Satna, carried out inspection of respondent; Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar Timber Merchant, Satna on March 19, 1987 and December 23, 1987 and found that the respondent-concern and Jagadamba Saw Mills are situated in one and the same premises, machines are filed in the same shade and the employees worked physically in both the aforesaid units. He submitted his report to appellant No. 1. ) Pursuant to the inspection report, appellant No. 2, vide letter dated May 17, 1989, d...


Jan 09 2006

Smt. Sharda Vs. Purushottam

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-09-2006

Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT102; 2006(1)MPLJ600

ORDERS.C. Vyas, J. 1. This revision under Section 397 of the Cr.PC is directed against the order dated 27-7-2005 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Indore in Misc. Judicial Case No. 22/2005, whereby application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected on the ground that her alleged marriage with the non-applicant was nullity.2. The applicant submitted in application under Section 25(1) of the Cr.PC, 1973 before the learned Family Court with a prayer to award Rs. 3,000/-per month as maintenances, from the non-applicant, on the ground that her marriage with the non- applicant was solemnized in Khajrana Ganesh Mandir, Indore on 13-12-1998 as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she started living with the non-applicant at his residence. It has also been contended that thereafter she became pregnant but on the advise of the non-applicant aborted the child. She has further contended that on 19-2-1999 non-applicant ous...


Jan 09 2006

Bank of India Vs. Earnest Health Care Ltd.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-09-2006

Reported in: [2008]86SCL230(MP)

ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a company petition filed by the petitioner a Nationalise Bank as one of the creditor of the respondent-company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act against the respondent-company. The winding up of respondent-company is sought essentially on the ground of their inability to pay the petitioner's huge money debt as contemplated under Section 433(e) of the Act.2. Admittedly, proceedings before the BIFR are pending under Sections 15 and 16 of SICA at the instance of respondent-company in reference case No. 172 of 2003. Under these circumstances, the bar contained under Section 22 of SICA is attracted for proceeding for winding up. In my opinion, therefore, the proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the BIFR and participate in the proceedings as one of the creditors rather than to prosecute the petition for winding up. In the event of reference being answered against the respondent, the petitioner will be free to file an either petition for ...


Jan 09 2006

Laxmichand Dayabhai (Exports) Company Vs. Prestige Food Ltd.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-09-2006

Reported in: I(2007)BC196; [2009]149CompCas235(MP); (2006)6CompLJ331(MP)

ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a company petition filed by the petitioner as one of the creditor of the respondent-company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act against the respondent-company. The winding up of respondent-company is sought essentially on the ground of their inability to pay the petitioner's debt as contemplated under Section 433(e) of the Act,2. Admittedly, proceedings before the BIFR are pending under Sections 15 and 16 of SICA at the instance of respondent-company in reference case No. 187 of 1999. Under these circumstances, the bar contained under A Section 22 of SICA is attracted for proceeding for winding up. In my opinion, therefore, the proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the BIFR and participate in the proceedings as one of the creditors rather than to prosecute the petition for winding up. In the event of reference being answered against the respondent, the petitioner will be free to file an either petition for winding up on the same cause...


Jan 09 2006

Hare Singh Solanki Vs. Ramaji MaraThe and ors.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-09-2006

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC683

Dipak Misra, J.1. The appellant has called in question the sustainability of the award passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khandwa (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 99 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs. 1,11,000 in his favour whereas he had prayed for a sum of Rs. 9,25,000 as regards the nature of accident occurred and the disability suffered by him.2. The facts which are necessary to be stated are that the claimant-appellant instituted a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that he was posted as a Senior Surveyor in the Department of Town Planning, Khandwa. On 1st May, 1997 when he was travelling on his Rajdoot motor cycle the offending Tempo Trax bearing Registration No. MP 19-0573 coming from opposite side dashed against him, being rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 1, as a result of which the appellant suffered grievous injuries on his legs an...


Jan 07 2006

Rajesh Kumar Motilal Soni Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-07-2006

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(MP)324

ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal, filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act, against an order, dt. 25th April, 2003, passed by learned Tribunal, Indore Bench, in ITA No. 632/Ind/1997. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that total sum of Rs. 1,80,000 shown by the appellant as agricultural income was not entitled to exempt as agricultural income because the assessee himself has not carried out agricultural operation 2. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The question relates to asst. yr. 1995-96. In short, the question that arises for consideration is : Whether a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 can be said to be an income from agriculture in the hands of assessee so as to allow him to seek exemption f...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial