Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
Bhagwat Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPLJ273
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is defendant in Civil Suit No. 40-A/04 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mungolli, District Ashok Nagar challenging order (Annexure P-1), dated 21-4-06.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent in the present case has filed a civil suit against the defendant in respect of agricultural land bearing survey No. 21 and 22 situated in Village Chevlai, Tehsil Mungawali. After service of notice of the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC. The present petitioner has filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151, CPC for stay of the civil suit till the pendency of a Criminal Case No. 6/05, which is pending against the present petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 294, 379, IPC.3. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as a criminal case in respect of the same land or disputed property is pending before the Criminal Court. Hence, in view of the ju...
Puranmal Badrilal Gupta and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPLJ90
ORDERB.M. Gupta, J.1. Arguments heard.The undisputed facts of the case are as under:That on 21-8-91 one Food Inspector Shri B.S. Tomar, collected sample of iodized salt for analysis from petitioner No. 2. On being analyzed by the Public Analyst, it was found adulterated on the point that in place of 15 ppm iodine there was only 9.81 ppm iodine. On this ground the Food Inspector filed one complaint before CJM, Guna. Presently which is pending at Criminal Case No. 458/92 against four accused persons (1) petitioner No. 1 in the capacity of vendor (2) petitioner No. 1 in the capacity of distributor and (3 & 4] respondent No. 2 & 3 as manufacturer.2. That despite several efforts made, during the period of 10-12 years, the respondent No. 3 and 4 could not be traced out. Then vide order dated 27-8-2004, the learned Magistrate declared respondent No. 3 and 4 as absconded and framed charges against the petitioners on dated 14-10-2004 for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(A)(1) of Preve...
Anil Kumar Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1665
S.K. Kulshrestha and S.K. Seth, JJ.1. In this appeal, a student of Bachelor of Engineering on 27.9.2004 was involved in a motor accident. It is not in dispute that he sustained grievous injuries, when the vehicle No. MP 09-V 6068 in which he was travelling overturned on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. It is also undisputed before us that at the relevant time vehicle belonged to respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 3. Learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore after going through evidence awarded Rs. 5,15,000 as against the claim of Rs. 20,00,000. In this appeal for enhancement, the question is what damages should be awarded.2. On account of the accident, appellant sustained spinal cord injury, i.e., fracture of C5 and C6 and developed quadriplegia, which according to Dorland's Pocket Medical Dictionary, 21st Edn., means tetraplegia and in the same book, the meaning ascribed to tetraplegia is paralysis of all four extremities. This...
Sidharth Vs. Smt. Kanta Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2007MP59
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the defensibility and tenability of the orders dated 24-1-2004 and 13-8-2006 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No. 81-A/04, Annexure P-5, and prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the same. The writ petition was placed before the learned Single Judge for grant of necessitous relief on the substratum that the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Chhindwara has erroneously directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- by way of interim maintenance from the date of their order and Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expenses and to pay expenses of each hearing day on the basis of application preferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act'). It is worth mentioning that the second order dated 13-8-2005, was an ...
Titiksha Sales and Consumables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)9VST538(MP)
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated September 15, 2005 (annexure Pll), whereby cancellation of registration passed by the Commercial Tax Officer was confirmed, the present petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner which is as private limited company got itself registered as dealer under Section 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 which shall be referred (hereinafter as, 'the MPCT Act'). The address of the petitioner was shown as 35/46 Badi Bhamori, Indore. Registration of the petitioner was cancelled by the Commercial Tax Officer, vide order dated July 30, 2005, on the ground that upon inspection it was found that no business is carried out on the spot mentioned in the registration. Against which revision was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, which was dismissed, against which the present petition has been filed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ...
Narmada Valley Development Authority Vs. Narmada Construction
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR494(MP); 2007(2)MPHT342; 2007(1)MPLJ347
ORDER1. Heard.2. This revision has been filed under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 after 123 days of the expiry of the limitation. The State has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [M (C) P. No. 3232/2001] to seek condonation. Reply has been filed by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed great reliance on the amendment made in Section 19 in August, 2005. Learned Counsel for applicant submits that now, since the provision itself confers power to condone the delay, since the Court is considering the application after the amendment, the delay can be condoned under the said provision.3. The Civil Revision was filed in 2001 and admittedly, at that time, there was no provision in Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam providing for condonation of delay. In Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal construction Co. 2003(2) Weekly Note 152, it was held by this Court that Section 19 does not permit or em...
Mohammad Safiq Vs. Inspector, Labour
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2007
ORDERSushma Shrivastava, J.1. None is appearing for the petitioner. This is an old case. Hence, heard on the petition.2. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the proceedings instituted against the petitioner and pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begumganj, District Raisen under Section 14(1) of The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act').3. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 14(1) of the Act on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 before the Court by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begumganj, Raisen alleging that on 10-4-1997 the petitioner had employed a child under 14 years of age for Bidi making in violation of Section 3 of the Act. The criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Court on 16-2-1999 in respect of the offence under Section 14(1) of the Act allegedly committed on 10-4-1997. The cognizance of the case was taken against...
Sanjay Vs. Rajeev
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC10
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order passed by JMFC, Indore on 1.2.2005 in criminal case No. 1538/01 by which it was confirmed by the order dated 24.6.2006 passed in criminal revision No. 235/05 by First Additional Sessions Judge. Indore. The present petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before learned Magistrate. During trial, two interlocutory applications, one under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and second under Sections 45, 65 and 67 of the Evidence Act were moved on behalf of present petitioner, before the learned Magistrate. Those two applications were considered by the Trial Court and were dismissed. That order was confirmed by the Revisional Court also.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the signatures on the cheque are not in dispute in this case, and as per the defence of the presen...
Kirit Patel Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC245
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. The prayer in this petition is to hold that the proceedings for sale of the petitioner's property which is not under a legal mortgage cannot be proceeded under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'Act, 1951').2. Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 has published a public notice for sale of plot No. 50-B, Amrat Palace Colony, Opposite Bombay Hospital, Indore in 'Dainik Bhaskar' newspaper on 5-1-2005. It is alleged that since the plot belongs to the petitioner, therefore, objections were filed wherein it was specifically mentioned that petitioner has never given any guarantee on behalf of M/s. Sonu Ice Factory and never mortgaged the said plot with respondent No. 1. It was alleged that no demand was made from the petitioner. Petitioner also prayed for supply of guarantee/ mortgage-deed, if any. Further case of the petitioner is that vide reply dated 8-2-2005 petitioner was informed by the respon...
Satish Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)MPLJ396
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Applicant has tiled this revision against the judgment dated 5-2-2002 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabulpur in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2001, whereby the judgment dated 3-1-2001 passed by Special Municipal Magistrate, Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 1347 of 1995, convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 200/-, was affirmed.2. Facts of the case are that on 9-5-1994, Food Inspector, H.D. Dubey took sample of cow-buffalo milk from the applicant, a milk vendor at Lalmati. Jabalpur. He purchased 750 millilitres of milk, kept it in a container and after making it homogeneous divided it into three parts of 250 millilitres each and filled the samples in three clean dry bottles as per rules and deposited the same in the office of Local Health Authority, Jabalpur. One sample alongwi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »