Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Ramawtar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP83
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. Both these writ petitions relate to Maa Sharda Devi Mandir at Maihar in District Satna in the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The State Legislature has enacted The Madhya Pradesh Maa Sharda Devi Mandir Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short the Adhiniyam), which has admittedly come into effect by a notification issued by the State Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Adhiniyam. Section 4 of the Adhiniyam provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any decree or order of any Court or any custom or usage or contract, sanad, instrument, deed or property, engagement to the contrary, the ownership of the Mandir and all the endowments which have been or may after the enactment of the Adhiniyam be made for the benefit of the Mandir in the name of any person whatsoever or for the convenience, comfort or benefit of the pilgrims visiting the Mandir and all offerings including Chadotri shall vest in the deity of Maa Sharda Devi. Section 5 (1) of the Adhiniyam provides ...
Totalfinaelf India Limited and ors. Vs. Shri Shyam Babu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT340
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of this petition as well as Misc. Criminal Case No. 2248/2006 Raja Upadhyaya v. Shyam Babu. As both the petitions arise out of the same order and common question is involved in both the petitions, they are being disposed of analogously.2. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth, 'the Code'), petitioners of both the petitions have filed these petitions for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1375/2005 pending against them in the Court of CJM, Chhatarpur and for setting aside the order dated 15-12-2005 passed in the said proceedings.3. The facts which led to filing of these petitions, in nut shell, are that the respondent in both the petitions filed a complaint against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 of the instant petition and one Raja Upadhyaya, the petitioner in Misc. Cr. Case No. 2248/2006. It is alleged in the complaint that Thierry Gautier and ...
ibrahim Vs. Government of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3928
W.A. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused/appellant. It arises out of judgment dated 29-4-1994 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Sessions Trial No. 399/92 whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 of the Penal Code for 4 years RI.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the statement of complainant P.W. 2 Arun Kumar wherein he has stated that at the relevant time when the accused discourteously talked to him he agitatingly impressed upon him that he should behave properly whereon the accused from his Thela took Darata and hit him over the left side of his ribs. The learned Counsel further drew my attention to the statement of P.W. 8 Dr. Verma who has proved that at the relevant time on the concerned ribs of complainant's body there was injury and he referred the complainant for x-ray examination and also found that there was on the left hand an abrasion and on the left ring finger another abras...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajitsingh Khajanchi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(MP)403; [2008]297ITR95(MP)
ORDER1. On being directed by this Court under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the benefits of Section 54F to an assessee who owned another residential house on the date of transfer?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the benefits of Section 54F even if the transfer is not evidenced by a registered deed?2. The assessee had sold his plot of land for Rs. 11,32,625 and claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act in respect of purchase of residential flat at 7, Chetak Vihar, Race Course Road, Indore, on Rs. 3,50,000 and in addition to this exemption, Rs. 25,000 had also been claimed in respect of expected investments in the said flat within one year.3. The assessee had ...
Rakesh Vs. Narayan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2267
Deepak Verma and S.K. Kulshrestha, JJ.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Indore in Case No. 64 of 2001. The appellant had approached the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on the ground that he was in the employment of the respondent No. 1 and received wages in sum of Rs. 3,000 per month. At the time of alleged accident he was only 18 years old.2. In intervening night of 28/29.5.2001 while in the employment of respondent No. 1, he was going by tractor bearing registration No. MP 11-D 2685 as a labourer, on account of rashness and negligence of the driver of the tractor, it overturned and he sustained severe injuries in his left leg and during treatment, his left leg had to be amputated below knee. On account of amputation of his left leg, he claimed compensation. It was stated that vehicle was insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent...
Ashok Bisen and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT267; 2007(2)MPLJ504
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The appellants, five in number, have preferred this intra-Court appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') calling in question the pregnability of the order dated 23-1-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 13273/2003.2. The facts which are imperative to be exposited are that the appellants/petitioners are working as Science Teachers in the Tribal (Education Department). They had knocked at the doors of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 60/1999 for grant of relief of promotion to the posts of Upper Division Teachers on many a ground. After abolition of the Tribunal by operation of law the matter stood transferred to this Court and was registered as a writ petition.3. It was contended in the writ petition that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to promote the appellants against 50% quota in Science subject. The said ...
Runabai and ors. Vs. Mannalal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1623
S.K. Kulshrestha and Viney Mittal, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed assailing the award dated 10.10.2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, District Dhar by which the claim of the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, had no jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that since the said remedy has been exhausted, he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.2. We have perused the bar contained in Section 167 of the Act and we are of the opinion that where in a given case the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction, the bar created by Section 167 will not become operative.3. Under these circumstances, we allow the appellants to approach the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to seek relief in respect of the death of Ramesh. The appeal is thus disposed of with the above liberty to the appellants....
Sunil and ors. and Manohar and ors. Vs. Smt. Vimla Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT95; 2007(2)MPLJ438
S.A. Naqvi, J.1. Appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 7-7-2000 passed by 9th ADJ, Gwalior in F.A. No. 6-A of 1998 whereby, setting aside judgment and decree dated 6-1-1998 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 485-A of 1994 and decreeing the suit for eviction of respondents/plaintiffs on the ground under Section 12(1)(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act'). This judgment shall also dispose of Second Appeal No. 344 of 2000 arising out of the same impugned judgment.2. Plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for eviction of suit premises against original tenant Laxman Das on the ground under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b) and 12(1)(i) of the Act. Laxman Das was tenant in the suit premises since 1976. Rent of suit premises was Rs. 80/- per month. The suit premise is situated in BARF WAIT GALI Daulat Ganj, Lashker. The suit premises is shown in the plaint map. No rent...
Manohar Dass Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT271
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. The instant revision is for impugning the judgment dated 21-3-01 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 8/01, whereby the learned Judge has affirmed the conviction of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 326/149,325/149 and 323/149 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aron Camp Guna, in Criminal Case No. 398/99 vide judgment dated 27-12-00. Vide the aforesaid judgment dated 27-12-00, the learned Magistrate had imposed rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 326/149 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 325/149 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 323/149 with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, 1,000/- and 500/- respectively to each of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. While modifying the sentence vide impugned judgment, the learned Judge imposed the jail sentence to the extent already undergone by the respondent Nos. 2...
Smt. Fatema Bai and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT513
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. The land in question in area 21 acres comprised in Survey No. 41/2 situated at Village Rausalli, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal was agreed to be purchased by respondent No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 2,20,500/-. An agreement was duly entered into which is on record as Annexure P-1. The vendor at the time of agreement received a sum of Rs. 42,000/- on 4-3-1977. Since the subject land was in excess of the land prescribed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, a provision was made in the agreement (Annexure P-l) that the vendor would apply to the Collector under the provisions of the aforesaid Act to enable him to sell the land in question to the petitioner. Accordingly, an application under Section 20(1) was made for seeking permission from the Competent Authority for sale of the subject land to the M.P. Housing Board for the consideration mentioned in the agreement. This application was duly entertained with the result that the respondent No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »