Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Crompton Greeves Limited Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST102(MP)
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenging the imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs. 2,09,489 by the Commercial Tax Department, the petitioner has filed this petition.2. The petitioner-company is duly registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 vide registration certificate, annexure P2. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of various electronic goods including transformers. For the said purpose they have established a factory in Malanpur, District Bhind. For the assessment year April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994 returns in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was submitted by the petitioner to the assessing authority. Even though turnover and the factual aspect of the matter were correctly reflected in the returns filed by the petitioner-establishment, assessment of tax was made at the rate of eight per cent per annum on the ground that as per the Government notification issued on July 17, 1989, being Notif...
Pappu @ Dinesh Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT168
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. This petition has been preferred against the order of externment dated 2-8-2006 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned District Magistrate, Anooppur, as modified by the learned Commissioner Rewa Division in appeal vide order dated 31-10-2006 (Annexure P-1).2. Short facts relevant for the purposes of the petition are that the petitioner is a grain merchant. He was served with the show-cause notice dated 29-6-2006 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 8(1) read with Section 5 (a) and 3 (a) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam'). In the notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner was involved in criminal activities and was leading a team of criminals engaged in gambling. Such criminal activities were causing financial and mental harassment to the poor population of the area. However, no one was coming forward to make a complaint or for giving evidence on account of terror of the petitioner. Particulars of crim...
Rajneesh Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2007MP204
Dipak Misra, J.1. The cardinal and centripodal issue that emanates for consideration in this writ petition is whether a provision providing wearing of protective headgear which is principally meant to protect one from injury, a resultant factor of hazardous happenstance and a chance casualty, should be regarded as an elevated primrose path in a legitimate body polity governed by Rule of Law that forms the bedrock of real welfare society which effectively encompasses and engulfs the constitutional frame-work of should be viewed as a provision inviting the wrath of Article 14 being arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, a transgression and infringement of freedom of movement as enshrined under Article 19 and also destructive of essential conception of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The challenge, quintessentially put, is to the constitutional validity of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity The Act') on the bedrock of the aforesaid three Articles and pr...
Indian Infrastructure Equipment Ltd. and anr. Vs. Check-post Officer a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ527; (2007)9VST457(MP)
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This writ appeal shall also govern disposal of Writ Appeal Nos. 10,11,12,13 and 14 of 2006. All these appeals have been filed against the common order passed on April 12, 2006 by the learned single judge in Writ Petition Nos. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933 and 934 of 20061 between the same parties.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a registered company, dealing in leasing out equipment and machinery on rental basis. The petitioner contended before the authorities that it purchased earth moving equipments, namely, JCB backhoe loaders, in Jaipur and after obtaining temporary registration certificate from the R. T. O., Jaipur, despatched the JCBs from Rajasthan to Harda, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, through transporter, respondent No. 3, Truck Operators' Union. On September 23, 2005 the trucks carrying JCBs were checked at the border check-post, Dhabla-Jodi, Khilchipur, in District Rajgarh (M. P.). The Check-post Officer found that the documents in r...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Govind Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3845
S.S. Dwivedi, J.1. The appellant/State has preferred this appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr. P.C. feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16-11-2005 passed by JMFC, Mahidpur, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 101/2005, whereby acquitted the respondent accused from the charge, under Sections 467, 471, 420 and 468 of the IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/accused at the relevant time was working as Secretary of the village panchayat Kachariya. It is alleged that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 20,000/-from the State Bank of Indore branch Mahidpur from the panchayat account No. 01 /1000-50183, for the construction of the boundary wall of the panchayat building of the village concerned. It is alleged that on investigation, it is found that the cheque has been produced by the respondent/accused contained the forged signature of the Sarpanch Abdul Aziz, on the basis of this, police Mahidpur had registered a criminal case under Sections 420 and 468, 4...
Paru Vs. Shiva @ Shivaji and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC557
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of MA No. 2026/2006 as both the appeals are arising out of the same accident and also arising out of one award.2. Being aggrieved by the award dated 31.1.2006 passed by MACT, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 54/2005 wherein a sum of Rs. 99,351 has been awarded to the appellant, the present appeal has been filed. In another case which is bearing M.A. No. 2026/2006 the award is passed in Claim Case No. 55/2005 wherein a sum of Rs, 28,823 has been awarded. Since in M.A. No. 2143/2006 respondent No. 3 is represented by Mr. Mayank Upadhayay, Advocate, therefore, he is also directed to appear in M.A. No. 2026/2006.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in M.A. No. 2143/2006 appellant Parti sustained fracture of patella bone and femur bone and there was permanent disability of 36% and there was shortening of leg by inch. It is submitted that the amount of Rs. 99,351 awarded by learned Tribunal to the appellant is on lower side....
Hariprasad Vs. Dhannu Through L.Rs. Shyamlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPHT255; 2007(2)MPLJ424
W.A. Shah, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of judgment and decree dated 28-6-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kannod, District Dewas in Regular Civil Appeal No. 22-A/2000. By the judgment impugned, judgment and decree vide dated 22-3-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Kannod in Civil Suit No. 144-A/95 has been confirmed whereby declaration in favour of the plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 through L.Rs. and respondent Nos. 2 and 3) has been made that they are the Bhumiswami of the disputed land; order of the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 170-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ('Code' hereafter) is in operative and the other side has been restrained from making an interference in the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents.2. It has been concurrently found by Courts below that the aboriginal tribe Bhumiswami Ramprasad sold his disputed land on 1-6-1958 to one Dhanya and also delivered to him its pos...
National India Rubber Works Ltd., thro' Its Factory Manager Vs. Employ ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR824]; (2007)IILLJ584MP
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The order passed In this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected two miscellaneous appeals i.e. M.A. No. 768/2003 (National India Rubber Works Ltd., Katni v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr.) and M.A. No. 606/2003 National India Rubber Works Ltd., Katni v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr.2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act'). The appellant company is registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1926 having its registered office at Katni and is also having a factory. The appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of articles made of Rubber used in surgical, medical and laboratory, soda water, accessories and also article which are used in various industrial units such as Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur, ITI, Railway etc.3. According to the appellant in its factory premises, there are various process of m...
Smt. Kanta Devi and ors. Vs. Shiv Parvati Mandir and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT289; 2007(3)MPLJ221
S.K. Gangele, J.1. The defendant/appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Guna in Civil appeal No. 20-A/1998 affirming the judgment and decree passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Guna in Civil Suit No. 42-A/96.2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on following substantial questions of law vide order dated 13-8-1999:(1) whether Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act shall remain in operation before determination of provisional rent under Section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?(2) whether decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) is contrary to the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction on the ground that suit house was in the ownership of Shiv Parvati Temple Trust. The defendant was tenant of the suit house on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The defendant did not pay the rent of the house after December, 1979 in spite of service of notice and also denied t...
Jugal Rathore Vs. Jagdish Rathore and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT295
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by petitioner seeking direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barwaha to the effect that the objection raised by present petitioner before him be heard and decided on merits by passing an appropriate order.2. Facts of the case are quite interesting. Present petitioner Jugal son of Gendalal was not a party in the proceedings which were pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate in which first of all order was passed on 23-12-2000 in Criminal Case No. 5/145/04 filed by Police Sanawad under the provisions of Section 145 of Cr.PC in which non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 Jagdish and Marubai wd/o Ghisalal were party No. 1 and non-applicant Nos. 3 to 6 (names are mentioned in the cause title) were party No. 2. It was stated in the complaint that the land bearing Survey No. 56; Patwari Circle No. 50; situated in Sanawad having an area of 09.63 acres and party Nos. 1 and 2 having dispute with rega...