Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Smt. Manjula Vs. Pradeep and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT109
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Counsel for respondent No. 1 to the effect that the appeal itself deserves to be dismissed as the appellant has not paid ad valorem Court fee. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that by the impugned order the objections submitted by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 58, CPC has been dismissed. Learned Counsel further submits that since against the dismissal of the objection under Order 21 Rule 58, CPC first appeal is maintainable under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21, CPC, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee. Learned Counsel further submits that since the order impugned herein adjudicates the objections filed by the appellant therefore, the same is having the force of decree. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is liable to make payment of Court fee as per Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fee Act, which require ad valorem Court fee. R...
Ramu Vs. Narsi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ730; 2007(4)MPHT399
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal is directed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Award dated 6-12-2004 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 123/04 dismissing his claim for compensation.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the sister of the appellant Yenu Bai went at Village Sawalmendha in her relation on 26-9-2003, at about 2.30 when she was sitting at the side of the road respondent No. 1 while driving a truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G-3509 in rash and negligent manner met an accident with her, resultantly she sustained injuries and died on the spot. She was working as labour and due to her untimely death appellant being her brother sustained mental pain and also deprived from her love and affection as she was residing with him. In respect of such accident an offence under Section 304A of IPC was registered at P.S. Bhaisdehi, after holding investigation the respondent No. 1 was charge-sheet...
State of M.P. Vs. Ghanshyam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ107
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The State has filed this appeal after grant of leave by this Court against the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Session Trial No. 205/93, judgment dated 29th March, 1994.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 21-3-1993 Station House Officer, Police Station, Daloda received information from Mukhbir that respondent Ghanshyam was coming with opium on Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. MP- 14-A-3634 to his resident. Station House Officer called Panch witnesses Pralhad and Mukesh and made them aware about Mukhbir report. He also sent intimation to this effect to the Addl. S. P. Mandsaur. The Station House Officer/Vijay Choudhari along with Panch witnesses and other police officials with Manohar Soni having weighing instrument reached near the house of the respondent in the night at about 1.30 a.m. Respondent came on motorcycle and was stopped outside...
Dr. Jaidev Siddha and ors. Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2007MP269; 2007(3)MPHT388; 2007(3)MPLJ595
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J. and Dipak Misra, J.1. Perceiving two conflicting views, one expressed in Smt. Shiva Dubey (Jheera) v. Sumit Ranjan Dubey (Jheera) (W.A. No. 310/06), Lakhan Lal Sonkar v. Gun Carriage Factory, 2007(1) M.P.H.T. 335 and State of M.P. v. M.S. Wakankar (2007) 1 MPLJ 99 and the other in Mis. Ram and Co. v. State of M.P. and Anr. W.A. No. 342/06 : 2007(3) M.P.H.T. 325 (DB) pertaining to the maintainability of writ appeal under the provision of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') the Division Bench referred the matter to the Larger Bench to put the controversy to rest and further to have the certitude in the field on certain parameters. Be it placed on record that the cavil relates to the bar provided under the proviso to Sub-section (1) to Section 2 of the Act as regards the entertain ability and acceptability of an appeal from an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this factual back...
K. Bhattacharya and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT490; 2007(4)MPLJ263
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. The instant petition is for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the complaint bearing Case No. 1/03 filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners in the Court of JMFC, Gohad, Distt. Bhind for the offence punishable under Section 7(ii) and (iii) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging the breach of Rule 32(c)(i) and the Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The facts in brief as admitted by both the parties during the course of arguments, are that one private complaint dated 3rd January, 2003 has been filed against the petitioners, Cadbury India Limited the petitioner No. 8 and its Directors, Managers the petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 for aforementioned offences, putting allegations against them that one A.K. Bhadoria, duly autho...
Smt. Sampat Devi Vs. Sub-divisional Officer-cum-prescribed Authority a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT462
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The acceptability and faultlessness of the order dated 4-9-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2840/2006 is called in question in this intra-Court appeal preferred under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.2. The appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the soundness of the order dated 14-2-2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh in Election Petition No. 11/A-89/04-05 whereby the Election Tribunal allowed the prayer of the election-petitioner for the purpose of recount of votes and the order which entailed in declaration of the election petitioner as the returned candidate.2. The facts which are imperative to be exposited are that the appellant was elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Makara. The respondent No. 2 preferr...
Shobha Vs. Executive Engineer (S.T.C.), M.P.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2826
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 24.4.2006, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case No. 18 of 2005. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,68,982 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which she sustained in an accident. According to claimant, i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in this appeal filed by the claimant-appellant and if so, to what extent?2. Heard Mr. S. Patwa, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr. Mayank Upadhyay, learned Counsel for respondent i...
Amar Bahadur Singh S/O Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. Devendra Singh S/O Sheeta ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2007MP262
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal has been filed at the instance of plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by him before the learned first appellate Court, has also been dismissed. 2. Plaintiff-Amar Bahadur Singh filed suit for injunction and for declaration that he is the owner having half share in the suit property. The suit property is a house, description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint. 3. The pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint is that vide partition deed dated 21/6/1972 there was a partition in the family and by this document of partition plaintiff-Amar Bahadur Singh and defendant No. 2Sheetala Prasad Singh who are real brothers partitioned the property mentioned in the partition deed and it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 that the property shall be sold and the sale price will be divided in two shares equally. However, the suit property which is a house could not be sold and, theref...
Ravindra Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(MP)568
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal.2. The petitioner/assessee is aggrieved against the order dt. 31st Jan., 2007 passed by the CIT-II, Indore under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').3. It appears from the record that petitioner/assessee is a bank employee and had filed his return of income-tax on 27th March, 2002, declaring his income as Rs. 5,21,785. The return filed by the petitioner was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The petitioner/assessee had claimed relief under Section 89(1) of the Act and had worked out the tax payable accordingly.4. Proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner/assessee, which was served upon him on 7th Nov., 2003. Assessment proceedings were completed under Section 147 on 13th May, 2004 at the total income of Rs. 5,21,785, as declared by the assessee, while the relief claimed under Section 89(1) was ...
Rajni Soni and ors. Vs. Hemraj and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ551
K.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the award dated 31.8.2006, passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Lakhnadaun in Claim Case No. 13 of 2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been partly allowed directing the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,86,443 (50 per cent of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 7,72,886) with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation on account of death of Suresh Kumar Soni caused in the motor accident.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 5.1.2002, Suresh Kumar Soni was going to Ganeshganj from Chhapara on his motor cycle (No. MP 20-G 8686) and as soon as he reached near village Kuhiya from the side of Ganeshganj to Seoni on National Highway 7 the driver of the tractor (No. MP 22-B 8465) has stationed the tractor on the road due to which Suresh Kumar Soni riding his motor cycle dashed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »