Madhya Pradesh Court October 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.
Swaroop Chand Vs. Smt. Gumana Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPLJ246
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 10-1-2003 passed by the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur in Case No. 60/A-90 (7)/2000, directing thereby eviction of the revisionist.2. Admitted facts of the case are that the shop in question is comprised in a property which was purchased by applicant Smt. Gumana Bai vide registered sale deed dated 6th of February, 1989 and has been occupied by the non-appli-cant/Revisionist as a tenant.3. Smt. Gumana Bai as a landlady submitted an application under Section 23-A (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) for eviction of the revisionist on the ground that she needed the disputed shop for starting of business by Sajal and Prabhat who happen to be the grand sons of her brother-in-law. The disputed property is stated to have been purchased by her vide registered sale deed 6th of February, 1989. The shop in question has been in the occ...
Somchandra Vs. Ramdas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ651
S.K. Kulshrestha and S.K. Seth, JJ.1. By this application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code the applicant seeks review of the order dated 6.4.2005 passed in M.A. No. 488 of 2002. It is not disputed between the parties that even though the insurance company had been exonerated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle, the learned single Judge in his order has proceeded on the footing that the insurance company has also been made liable and proceeded to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal till realisation.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that there is error apparent on record inasmuch as the insurance company was absolved of its obligation, the learned single Judge had proceeded on the assumption that the award of the Tribunal directed even the insurance...
Commissioner of Commercial Tax Vs. Shah Gordhandas Bhikharidas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST349(MP)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior has made a statement of the case under Section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, for the answer of following question:Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not including the freight charges in total turnover while holding that freight charges were shown separately in the bill and paid by buyer and the transactions were f.o.r. destination?2. To consider the question referred for answer of this court, it will be appropriate to state facts of the case:Both the aforesaid cases were decided by the Board of Revenue in Appeal Nos. 7-4/S/322/94 and 7-4/S/323/94 by a common order dated August 2, 1996, as question involved in both the appeals was common.3. The question before the Board was in respect of interpretation of Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST') that the freight which was shown in the bills separately, but was...
Kazi Sayed Ahmed Ali and anr. Vs. Veeah Finance and Investment Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC602
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2006 passed by XIII ADJ, Indore in Civil Suit No. 17-B/2005 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of CPC has been allowed and leave to defend is granted to the petitioner with a condition to furnish a solvent security of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the present petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners on 6.10.2005 for realization of an amount of Rs. 18,08,000/- alleging that respondent is a Private Limited Company before whom petitioner moved an application on 3.3.2003 for grant of loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Further case of the respondent was that the application filed by petitioner was placed before Board of Directors of respondent vide resolution dated 10.3.2003. The application submitted by petitioner was allowed subject to furnishing the promissory note and the undertaking/personal guarantee by the petitioners. It was alleged that...
Daljeet Kaur and ors. Vs. Fakru and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ949
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 6.2.2006 passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 66 of 2005 for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal by the said impugned award awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 3,21,500 and held that the owner and insurance company are liable to pay the amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.2. The insurance company, respondent No. 2, raised an objection before Claims Tribunal that original driving licence issued in favour of the driver was fake and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. The said objection was rejected by the impugned award dated 6.2.2006 and, therefore, after receipt of notice of the memo of appeal, insurance company filed the cross-objection in this appeal.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.7.2003 a truck bearing regis...
Ramesh Chand Rathore Vs. Ram Prakash Tiwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ382
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 20.9.2002 passed by Eighth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 127 of 2001, by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition and directed the appellant-claimant to deposit the interim compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal amounting to Rs. 25,000 within a period of one month, failing which the insurance company, respondent No. 3, is free to initiate executing proceedings for recovery of the said amount from the claimant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is working as a cleaner in truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 1093. On 16.9.2000, the said truck was going from Bhopal to Gwalior and it was driven by respondent No. 1 very rashly and negligently. Near Kurawar at Bhopal-Byaora Road, due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver, the said truck was overturned. Due to said ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayani Modi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1723
Dipak Misra, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the award dated 23.1.2006 passed by the Eighth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C. No. 705 of 2005 by the insurer, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Be it placed on record, a cross-objection has been filed by the claimants, the legal representatives of the deceased late Ram Gopal Modi.2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that on 28.3.2005, the deceased Ram Gopal was returning to his house after getting the shaving done in a barber shop at Damoh Naka Road. At that juncture, a minibus bearing registration No. MP 20-E 9528 being rashly and negligently driven by the concerned driver dashed against the scooter. He was taken to National Hospital, Jabalpur but after sometime he breathed his last. The wife and other legal representatives initiated an action under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act putting forth a claim of Rs. 11,00,000 on the foundation that the deceased was a transpo...
Jhitaribai Vs. Kendar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC736
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a revision filed by the claimant Jhitaribai under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against an order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal, Jhabua, arising out of a motor claim case No. 115/2000, decided by the said Tribunal on 2.11.2004.2. Short facts are these. The petitioner was a claimant. She filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being claim case No. 115/2000. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by award dated 2.11.2004 and awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000 along with interest payable thereon @ 9% from the date of the application till realisation to the petitioner. In the award, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No. 2 to pay the awarded sum to the claimant and then recover the awarded sum from the respondent No. 1 i.e., insured of the vehicle i.e., Kendar.3. The claimant i.e., petition...
Cit Vs. Eicher Motors Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(MP)629; [2007]293ITR464(MP)
S.K. Seth, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of connected 1 I. T. A. Nos. 27 of 2003 ; 29 of 2003 and 43 of 2003 as these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), are at the instance of the revenue against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment years 1989-90 ; 1990-91 ; 1991-92 and 1992-93.2. I. T. A. No. 28 of 2003 was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions:(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore erred in holding that the amount paid to Mitsubishi Motors Corporation by the assessee as royalty was allowable as revenue expenditure ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in permitting the assessee to raise additional ground relating to funded interest when no such claim was ever made before the assessing officer or Commissioner (Appeals) ?(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of ...
Mohanlal Vs. Lad Kunwar Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC714
ORDERS.S. Dwivedi, J.1. The applicant/husband has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Revision No. 191/2005 whereby learned Revisional Court has set aside the impugned order dated 29.7.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alot, District Ratlam in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 39/2000 for rejection of the petition filed by the non-applicant for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and granted the maintenance amount of Rs. 800 per month in favour of the non-applicant along with the cost of Rs. 1,000 against the applicant.2. Brief facts of the case are that non-applicant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance before Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Alot. Learned trial Magistrate, after due appreciation of the entire evidence produced ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »