Madhya Pradesh Court November 2007 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.
Official Liquidator (Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd.) (In Liquidation) Vs ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas1(MP); [2008]83SCL541(MP)
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.In this appeal the appellant originally challenged the order dated April 25, 2007, but later on also started challenging the order dated April 4, 2007. The appellant has already made an application (I.A. No. 16142 of 2007) seeking permission of the court to challenge the order dated April 4, 2007. After going through the application, we are of the opinion that the appellant should be given appropriate opportunity in this very appeal to challenge the order dated April 4, 2007.2. From the records it would appear that the company petition was filed in the year 1997 and the company came under liquidation from the year 1998. The official liquidator was accordingly appointed to receive the assets, properties, accounts, etc., of the said company and was also required to work under the directions of this court.3. We are told that the property of the company was time and again disposed of and certain properties have been converted ...
B.S. Patel Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(MP)333
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeals being IT Appeal Nos. 39 and 40 of 2005, because all the three appeals involve common question of law and secondly, relate to same assessee except the difference being that each appeal arise out of different assessment years.2. This is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act (for brevity called 'the Act') by the assessee against an order dt. 24th Sept., 2004, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 930/Ind/1998. It was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law by this Court:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the ease, the Tribunal was justified in holding that disallowance of PF for the asst. yr. 1995-96 and the amount deposited towards PF and ESI can be allowed to be deducted by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 43B of the IT Act The question involved in these appeals arises out of asst. yr. 1992-93 (IT Appeal No. 67 of 2...
Anil Kumar Gupta S/O Late Vasudeo Gupta Vs. State of M.P. Through P.S.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT189
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 24.3.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Amarpatan, District Satna, in Criminal Appeal No. 35/07, affirming the judgment and order dated 3.7.2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amarpatan, in Criminal Case No. 384/06, convicting the applicant under Section 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and rigorous imprisonment for with fine of Rs. 2000/-, on each count respectively. Sentences directed to run consecutively.2. In short, the prosecution case is that applicant/accused since before 3.2.1999 dishonestly induced and deceived people of village Dihiya Kala viz Vishwanath Kol, Surjdeen, Bhagwandeen, Ram Sushil, Ram Pratap, Ramhet, Dayali, Samaylal, Pachai, Samay Lal, Ram Khelawan, Balli, Parasi, Chhotelal, Ram Krap...
Sita @ Sita Pratap Vaishya Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT92
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. The applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 22-5-2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sidhi, in Sessions Trial No. 186/2006, framing charge against him for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, prima facie, on the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. From the facts of the case, it is not revealed that the applicant in any manner abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Since necessary ingredients of abetment are not present in the case, learned Trial Court has committed error in framing charge against the applicant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.3. In short, the prosecution's case is that, between 22-6-2006 and 23-6-2006, Lolar @ Siphailal committed suicide by hanging on Babool tree. A 'Merg' report was lodged on 23-6-2006 at 9.00 A.M. by Bholanath (father of deceased). According to him, his son Sipha...
Arun Kumar Patel and anr. Vs. Smt. Terasi Saket and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT457
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the owner and driver aggrieved by Award dated 29-6-04 passed by Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mauganj, District Rewa in Claim Case No. 33/2001.Claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 7 preferred claim petition on account of death of Shyamlal who met with an accident on 4-6-01, he was travelling in tractor trolley. Vehicle was driven by Shravan Patel, it was owned by Arun Patel and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimants submitted that the deceased was coming back in the tractor trolley after administering fertilizers in his agricultural field, deceased was shoe mendor, he used to sell shoes in the market, compensation of Rs. 57,60,000 was claimed.2. Owner denied the factum of accident in his reply, other facts were also denied. It was contended that vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., liability, if any, was required to be borne by the insurer.3. The insurer in its reply denied the liability to make ...
Smt. Sakribai Vs. M.P. Government and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR88]
N.K. Mody, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 830/2004 & 831/2004, as all the appeals are arising out of one accident. In all the appeals the respondents are one and the same and the order is passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court) Ratlam.2. The appeal is admitted on live following substantial question of law:Whether the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has committed a gross error of law in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant?3. Short facts of the case are that the appellant in all the cases filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act before the learned Court below alleging that appellants are, resident of Tehsil Ranapur, District Jhabua. It was alleged that resident No. 1 was executing the work of construction of Dam and for this purpose respondent No. 2 was authorized by respondent No. 1. Further case of appellants was that in the year 1995, respondent No. 2 was executing work ...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kantidevi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT458; 2008(1)MPLJ633
ORDERP.K. Jaiswal, J.Heard.1. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company against the interim award dated 20-4-2007, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, allowed the applications filed by the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and held that the owner, driver and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the interim compensation within a period of one month from the date of order, failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till its realization.2. For the sake of convenience, I state the facts occurring in Misc. Appeal No. 728/07 arising out of award dated 20-4-07.3. On 15-11-2005 deceased and injured were travelling in a goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No. MP07/G-6231 and due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 8- Leelaram, the said vehicle met with an accident. Due to which Disai, Kanchu Rajput, Shatrughan, Pawan...
State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Shekhar Constructions
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP59; 2008(1)ARBLR638(MP); 2007(4)MPHT503; 2007(4)MPLJ531
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. A Division Bench hearing the Civil Revision No. 142/2005 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Shekhar Constructions) expressed its doubt with regard to the correctness of the decision rendered in Civil Revision No. 1/2006 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Shriram and Sons) and referred two questions to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench. The two questions framed by the Division Bench are as under:(i) Whether after amendment in Section 19 of the Adhiniyam application for extending the period of limitation in filing revision can be entertained if Court is satisfied that petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause can be examined by the Court in cases where cause of action for filing revision is accrued to the petitioner under the unamended provision of Section 19 and period of limitation is expired before the amendment in the Adhiniyam?(ii) Whether the application to condone the delay will be maintainable and the amended provision of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam...
Bablu Mandal Vs. Smt. Vandana Bhowmik
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT273; 2008(1)MPLJ522
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20th July, 2007 by the Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in MJC No. 93/2007 by which petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was rejected.2. The facts of the case are as under:(a) Late Sukhram Bhowmik was husband of respondent Smt. Vandana Bhowmik. He died on 17-12-2003. The applicant filed an application for grant of probate on the basis of will dated 22-4-2003 stated to be executed by late Sukhram Bhowmik in his favour by which first floor of a dwelling house MIG 48, Sector 3-A, situated at Saket Nagar, Bhopal stated to be bequeathed in favour of the applicant.(b) The application filed before the Second Additional District Judge was registered as MJC No. 17/2006, in which summon was issued to the respondent/non-applicant. The summon was returned back with the report that respondent refused to accept the same and on the basis of this, respondent was proceeded an ex parte and final order dated 3...
Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP22; 2007(4)MPHT545; 2008(1)MPLJ152; 2008(1)AIRKarR353(FB)(MP).
ORDERDipak Misra, J.Introductory backdrop:1. Questioning the assailability and substantiality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5731/2006 the present writ appeal was preferred under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short 'the 2005 Adhiniyam'). When the same was placed before a Division Bench for the purpose of admission on 20-8-2007 the Bench hearing the appeal took note of the decision rendered in the case of Rama and Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 325 (D.B.) : 2007 (11) M.P.J.R. 229, wherein a view was expressed to the effect that an order passed by the learned Single Judge while dealing with the sustainability of the order passed by the Board of Revenue is delineation under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and not in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the dictum propounded in Dr. Ja...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »