Madhya Pradesh Court October 2007 Judgments
Raj Rajeshwari Nandan Gupta Vs. Special Police Establishment, Lok Ayuk ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT174
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-7-01, passed by the learned, first Addl, Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Gwalior in Special Case No. 4/93, convictiong the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198 (in short for brevity 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer R.I. of noe year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in fefault, further R.I. of six monthes on each count, the appellent has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. In brid, the case of the prosecution is that complainant Kailash Chandra Agrawal (P.W. 1) owns a trading shop in the name and style 'Agrawal Textiles' This shop continued till year 1984-85 and the same was closed in the year 1987.3. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant, who at the relevant point of time, was serving on the post of Assistant Sales Tax Officer and ...
Tag this Judgment!Munnilal Yadav Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT173
R.C. Mishra, J.1. This is an appeal, under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the order, as contained in the operative part of a common judgment dated 30-4-2001 passed by III ASJ, Chhatarpur in S.T. Nos. 86/97, 213/96 and 140/90, directing retention of a 12 bore gun, ten cartridges and a wrist watch, allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant in custody of Court till conclusion of the trial of the absconding accused persons.2. The appellant is amongst the persons, who were prosecuted and tried on the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 395 read with Sections 397 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code. As per seizure memo (Exh. P-20), the Investigating Officer S.N. Singh had seized the gun as the firearm used in commission of the dacoity with murder as early as on 17-7-1995. Although, for want of incriminating evidence, learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellant of the offences yet, he proceeded to direct ret...
Tag this Judgment!Devisingh Vs. Vikramsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ393; AIR2008MP18; 2007(4)MPHT535; 2008(1)AIRKarR349(FB)(MP); 2008AIHC400; (MP)(FB)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The relevant facts leading to this reference are that one Devisingh was a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No. MP-09-LF-1486 driven by Meharbansingh. The motor cycle met with an accident with a jeep bearing registration No. MP-09-W-2291 driven by Vikramsingh. As a consequence of the accident, the driver of the motor cycle as well as the two pillion riders on the motor cycle sustained injuries and they filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').2. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,95,100/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of Devisingh after holding that the negligence on the part of the jeep driver was 80% and the negligence on the part of the motor cycle driver was 20%. Aggrieved by the award, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed M.A. No. 314/2007 and Devisingh filed M.A. No. 670/2007. When the appeals were hear...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Zakir HussaIn Vs. the Akola Janta Commercial Co-operative Bank L ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT71
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging auction notice Annexure P-3 issued by the respondent-Bank, whereby the property of the petitioner is put to auction in exercise of powers conferred under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act, 2002').Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his brother Hafiz Sakir Hussain are the owners of Block No. 31, Plot No. 23/2 having an area 2621 sq. ft. On 18-6-2007 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act, 2002 for recovery of advance loan amount. The copy of the said notice is Annexure P-2. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice. Copy of which is Annexure P-2.2. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that without considering reply submitted by the petitioner, auction notice Annexure P-3 is issued putting his aforesaid property to auction. Petitioner claims ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagram Shakya and ors. Vs. Gokul Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT504; 2008(1)MPLJ517
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for partition and perpetual injunction with allegations that the plaintiff and defendants are children of a common father who owned a property situated at Naka Chandrabadni, Nahar Wali Mata Road, Lashkar Gwalior. Their father died on 11-3-1977 in intestate condition. An oral family settlement was effected which was not in accordance with law. Plaintiff being owner to the extent of 1/4th share is entitled to his 1/4th share after effecting partition by metes and bounds. Decree for perpetual injunction has also been sought for restraining the defendants from alienating the disputed property without first effecting the partition and consequent allotment of 1/4th share to the plaintiff.2. Defendants/petitioners submitted their joint written statement. They acknowledged their relationship as well as source of title. According to them, the family settlement was effected in due manner and the same was acted upon. Plaintiff is deb...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meera Rani and ors. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT75
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the pregnability of the impugned order (Annexure P-8), dated 28-9-04 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class I, Ashoknagar in Civil Suit No. 665-A/1998 whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 has been allowed and Smt. Sunita and Dr. Sushil Kumar Viswas have been directed to be impleaded as defendants.2. It has been vehemently contended by Shri Aniket Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioners that plaintiff is: dominus litus and he cannot be forced to implead a particular person as a party against whom he does not want any relief and therefore the Trial Court erred in substantial error of law and has also acted illegally with the material irregularity in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC. To bolster his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy rel...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nisha Bai Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT519; 2008(1)MPLJ219
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the pregnability of the impugned order Annexure P-1, dated 31 -5-2005 passed by Collector District Guna whereby the order dated 27-11-1993 passed by Tehsildar, Guna allotting the land under M.P. Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ke Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') has been set aide while exercising suo motu powers conferred to it under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code.2. The contention of learned Counsel for petitioner is that the order of Tehsildar was passed on 27-11-1993 and after near about four years the Collector, Guna took the matter while exercising suo motu powers of revision which was not permissible under the law. According to learned Counsel the suo motu exercise of powers of revision at the most could have been taken within...
Tag this Judgment!Bhav Singh Vs. Smt. Savirani and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1043; AIR2008MP1; [2008(2)JCR159(MP); 2007(4)MPHT460; 2008(1)MPLJ72; 2008(1)AIRKarR314(FB)(MP); 2008AIHC386(MP)(FB)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The relevant facts leading to this reference are that Hariram was a labour working for the owner of the tractor-trolley bearing registration NO.M.P.15/T-1184 and while traveling in the tractor- trolley met with an accident and died. His legal heirs filed M.A.C.T. Case No. 29 of 1998 and by award dated 6.3.1999, the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar awarded a sum of Rs. 2,84,332/- with interest as stated therein against the owner of the vehicle but absolved the insurer of the tractor-trolley, the New India Assurance Company Limited. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellant who is the owner of the tractor-trolley has filed the present appeal.2. When the appeal was heard by the Division Bench, a Full Bench decision of this Court in Jugal Kishore and Anr. v. Ramlesh Devi and Ors. 2003 (4) MPLJ 546 was cited by learned Counsel for the appellant before the Division Bench to contend that a policy of insurance satisfying the requireme...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shankaranarayana Construction Company Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP5; 2008(1)ARBLR296(MP); 2007(4)MPHT444; 2008(1)MPLJ78; AIR2008MP5; 2008(1)AIRKarR319(FB); 2008AIHC390(MP)(FB
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner entered into a works contract with the respondents for construction of a central spillway of Rajeev Sagar Tank Project in Guna District of Madhya Pradesh on 19-2-1999. Clause 4.3.29.2 of the Conditions of Contract provides that any claim valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more will be considered by the Superintending Engineer (for short 'the S.E.') of the Circle and any party dissatisfied with the final decision of the S.E. may refer the dispute to the Tribunal constituted under The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the 1983 Adhiniyam'). The petitioner made a claim of Rs. 21.81 crores against the State of Madhya Pradesh in its letter dated 7-1-2002. The S.E. rejected the claim and this was communicated to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer by letter dated 6-6-2002. Instead of referring the dispute to the Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Adhiniyam, the petitioner filed the M.C.C. under Section 11(6) of the Arbitrati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rathi Finlease Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(MP)429
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal dt. 17th March, 2004 in Appeal No. ITA-825/Ind/2003 for the asst. yr. 2000-01, by which the Tribunal has deleted the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 made by the AO and affirmed by the CIT(A).2. The respondent assessee submitted its retusn for the year 2000-01 and indicated loss of Rs. 3,56,325. The matter was taken up in scrutiny and due notice was given to the respondent assessee to explain the receipt of Rs. 5,00,000 from M/s Flag Synthetics, Rs. 5,00,000 from Palasiya Leasing & Investment (P) Ltd. and Rs. 5,00,000 from Patni Industries Ltd. on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of these parties were not established. The assessee produced the confirmatory letters before the AO but the AO on making deeper probe learnt that in each case the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was deposited on the same day on which the cheque was issued in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »