Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Godrej Pilsbury Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)9VST485(MP)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. he petitioner was assessed to commercial tax for the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000 by order dated April 17, 2003 of the assessing authority under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the appeal before the first appellate authority, but he dismissed the appeal by order dated September 30, 2004. Against the order of the first appellate authority, the petitioner filed the second appeal before the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board. During the pendency of the second appeal, the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was repealed and in its place the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 came into force with effect from April 1, 2006. Section 53(2) of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 provided for an appeal by the Commissioner or the dealer aggrieved against any order passed by the Appellate Board under the Repealed Act of 1994 to the High Court but Sub-section (5) of Section 53 of the Madhya Prade...
Smt. Shashi Shrivastava Vs. Jagdishsingh Kushwah
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC659; 2007(4)MPHT480
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. The facts, in brief, are that one complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Section 420 of IPC. Cognizance under Section 138 of the Act has only been taken against the petitioner vide order dated 25th February, 2002. On perusal of the complaint, it appears that the same has been filed by his advocate putting his initials only and without the signatures of the respondents/complainant. One application dated 17th October, 2003 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 245 of Cr.PC for quashing the complaint on the ground that the same has been filed without the signatures of the complainant. Vide reply dated 25th February, 2004, the respondent/complainant has mentioned his willingness to put his signatures on the complaint. Vide order dated 22nd August, 2005, the JMFC, Gwalior has observed t...
Late Kamlabai Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Rajesh Kalal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP125
S.K. Seth, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Neemuch in regular Civil Appeal No. 34-A/2001.2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on 8-7-2003 on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether lower appellate Court was justified in confirming the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court which decreed plaintiffs suit for possession?(2) Whether lower appellate Court was justified in holding that suit for possession based on title as also on the strength of mortgage is maintainable in law and if so, whether there was adequate material brought by the plaintiffs to sustain their title and alleged mortgage?(3) Whether documents relied on by the plaintiffs to support the plea of ownership and that of mortgage is legally made out and whether such finding though of a concurrence is binding on second appeal?3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary ...
Gayadeen Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT494
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. This petition is for quashing the complaint registered at Criminal Case No. 1141/03 pending in the Court of CJM, Bhind, under Sections 193 and 195 of IPC against the petitioner.The facts in brief, are that, deceased Mamta, the daughter of the petitioner was married with one Bhanu Pratap Singh Kushwah. Within two and a half years of her marriage, she died. Merg was reported, enquiry was made. One typed report dated 30th January, 2002 (Annexure P-1) was submitted by the petitioner to City Inspector, City Kotwali, Bhind, putting allegations against Bhanu Pratap Singh and his family members with regard to subjecting the deceased with cruelty on demand of dowry. Crime was registered. Bhanu Pratap and his family members were prosecuted. During trial, petitioner became hostile to the prosecution. He did not support the allegation lodged by him against the accused persons in that case. He admitted his signatures on his report which was admitted in the evidence as Ex...
Jekaram Jumnani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT525
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. Shri A.K. Barua, Senior Advocate with Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, P.L. for the respondent/State.2. This petition has been preferred impugning the adverse remarks passed against the petitioner in Paras 28 and 58 of judgment dated 23rd August, 2005, passed by JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 1004/2004.3. Shri Barua for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, being the Police Officer was examined as a witness in the aforementioned case. At the time of passing of the judgment disparaging remarks were passed, without providing any opportunity of hearing to him. Hence the remarks are required to be quashed. Shri Barua, placed reliance on Manish Dixit and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2001) SCC (Cri.) 235.4. Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, for the respondent/State has submitted that the observation of the learned Magistrate is simply an observation regarding the conduct of the petitioner. Opportunity of heari...
Smt. Zubeda and ors. Vs. Smt. Najma Afzal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPLJ638
Arun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 8.12.2004 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Sehore in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2003.2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 10.3.1995. The suit was filed as against Kalimurrahman (since deceased, represented by defendants appellants No. 1(a) to 1(g)) and defendant Abdul Qadeer (since deceased, represented by defendants appellants No. (a) to 3(g)). An agreement was entered into for a consideration of Rs. 3,70,000/-, plaintiff paid part of consideration of Rs. 40,000/-to Kalimurrahman at the time of agreement through her deceased husband. Kalimurrahman refused to execute the sale-deed and to transfer the suit house in the name of defendant and ultimately sold suit house to original defendant in two parts vide sale deeds dated 18.9.1996 which the plaintiff claimed to be null and void.3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 in their wri...
Maryadit Vs. Rameshchandra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT105
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd August, 2004, passed by the XIX Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2003, by which the application of the appellant under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, has been dismissed.2. The case has a chequered history. On 20-3-01974, an agreement was entered into by the appellant and the respondent No. 1 for sale of land, admeasuring 2.039 hectares (5 acres) in Village Chitawad, for consideration at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- . per hectare. In pursuance of the said agreement, payment was made by the appellant-Society in installments commencing from 22-3-1982 to 28-8-1984 and, thus, a total amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- was paid. However, on 3-2-1991, a publication in the Newspaper appeared to the effect that the said land was being sold to a third party. It was in this context that a suit was filed on 11-2-1991 for declaration of title and injunction before the Civil Judge, Class II, Indore. The case w...
Fr. Lucas I Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2008MP92; 2008(3)MPHT288
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, Secretary, Catholic Diocese of Indore, has prayed for declaring the Sections 21(2), 27, 28 and 29 of the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the M.P. (Sanshodhan) Act (No. 29 of 1998), Rule 4 of M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1998 (for brevity 'the 1998 Rules') and Schedule to the said Rule as unconstitutional and to issue a further direction to the respondent No. 2, Registrar of Firms and Societies, to refund the amount that has been levied for grant of permission as contemplated under Section 21(3) read with Schedule to Rule 4.2. The facts in a nut shell are that the petitioner is the Secretary of Catholic Diocess, a society registered under the Act and is represented by its Secretary. The object of the society is to support and maintain the Roman Catholic Bishop and Clergy of the ...
Yuvaraj Merch-x Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: (2009)21VST38(MP)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of scientific equipment, conversion of cotton hosiery yarn into cloth upon receiving knitting charges and also manufacturing hosiery garments by paying stitching charges for export. They are registered as dealers on the file of the respondent under the provisions of both the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. That apart, the petitioner is a sales agent of Pailung Machinery Mill Co. Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan, who is a manufacturer of textile machines, parts and accessories and an agent of Paramount Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd., who is a manufacturer of scientific instruments. Originally, the respondent has assessed the tax for the assessment year 2003-04 and determined a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 51,22,919 by accepting the returns filed by the petitioner.2. Thereafter, the enforcement wing officials conducted an inspection on September 15, 2004 in petitioner's...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saukat Ali and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1555
U.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This order shall govern aforesaid both the appeals arisen out of the common award.2. The appellant insurer has filed these appeals being aggrieved by the common award dated 30.3.1993 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No. 60 of 1991 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of M.A. No. 352 of 1993 along with Claim Case No. 62 of 1991 filed by the respondent No. 1 of M.A. No. 351 of 1993 awarding the claims jointly and severally against the respondent Raj Kumar Gangwani, Ram Singh and appellant for the sum of Rs. 86,400 and Rs. 42,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum respectively in the aforesaid claim cases.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 16.1.1991 at about 7 a.m. Amrit Lal Soni aged about 19 years and Dhammi Bai aged about 40 years were returning to their village Katra from Sohagi along with the vegetables, their business goods, in a truck bearing registration No. MKA 1252, driven...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »