Madhya Pradesh Court April 2008 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.
Kishan and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT214
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The appellants assail the judgment dated 8th February, 1999 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, in S.T. No. 247/97 by which the appellant No. 1 has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- while appellant No. 2 Soram Bai has been convicted under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-. The appellants were indicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC for having committed murder of Dhapubai in pursuance of their common intention and having concealed her body with a view to screen the commission of the offence.2. According to the prosecution case, on 2-6-1997, Devisingh (P.W. 8) went to the house of his sister-in-law and found that the house was locked from outside. On inquiry having being made, it was learnt that the accused No. 1 Kishan and his wife Dhapubai had left the house eight days ago. On 3-6-97...
Ajay Arora Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT332
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. The petitioner engaged in the business of liquor has filed this petition seeking directions to the State Govt. to initiate departmental proceedings against the third respondent on the basis of enquiry report dated 2-12-2005 conducted by Shri B.K. Vyas, Additional Excise Commissioner.2. In short, the petitioner's case is that in the reconstituted partnership deed dated 5-3-2002 of firm M/s. Ashok Traders he was inducted as one of the partners of firm. On the strength of the reconstituted partnership deed, the firm could successfully obtain license to sale country and foreign liquor in the Bhopal District for the year 2002-03. Again the firm successfully participated in the bid for the year 2003-04. It is stated that along with the tender document for the year 2003-04 the partnership deed dated 5-3-2002 was submitted. However, on acceptance of the bid of the firm, at the time of award of the contract to the firm some of the partners of the firm with connivance ...
Mujaffar HussaIn Mansoori Vs. Devendra Trivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT503
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellant/complainant has filed this appeal after grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondent herein passed by learned III ASJ, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 56/01, dated 1-9-2001 arising out of judgment of conviction of respondent Devendra Trivedi, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore (Ku. Sunita Barlo) in Criminal Case No. 1099/00, convicting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') sentenced to RI for six months and fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand) and compensation amount of Rs. 12,000/- (Twelve Thousand) was ordered to be given to the appellant.2. This is the appeal of the year 2001. Respondent is represented by his Advocate but on 14-2-2008 appeal was listed for final hearing and the Advocates of both the parties were not present, therefore adjourned for two weeks. It was again listed on 25-3-2008 and on this date Counsel for the appellant Vijay ...
Prem Narayan B. Tiwari Vs. Sitaram R. Soni and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2906
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), is directed against the order-dated 28-10-2002 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Cri. Revision No. 38/2000, whereby the petitioner's revision against order dated 2-5-2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panna in Cri. Case No. 16/Section 145, Cr.P.C./2000 was dismissed.2. The order in question was passed by the SDM in the proceedings initiated, under Section 145 of the Code, upon the application moved by the petitioner on 19-1-2000. According to the petitioner, on 17-1-2000 at about 4 p.m., the respondents had forcibly encroached upon Chabutra (a platform) and the room respectively situated in the southern and eastern portion of his house, bearing No. 60-C, situated in Katra Mohalla, Panna. The Magistrate forwarded copy of the application to the SHO Kotwali for inquiry. In response, the police officer submitte...
Veerpal Singh Gurjar Vs. Insurance Ombudsman for M.P. and Chhattisgarh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT343
ORDERS.C. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is an agriculturist and owner of tractor bearing No. U.P. 93-K/5251, is aggrieved by an order dated 17-5-07 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman for M.P. and Chhattisgarh.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his tractor was registered with the Transport Department bearing No. U.P. 93- K/5251 and was insured by the respondent No. 2 IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Co. Ltd., for a period w.e.f. 7-2-06 to 6-2-07. As per averments of the petitioner the Tractor was stolen on 26-2-06 and a report was lodged with the police authorities, Insurance Company and also respondent No. 3, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., Lucknow as the tractor was financed by the respondent No. 3 Bank. The petitioner submitted his claim before Insurance Company respondent No. 2 and the Insurance Company appointed as investigator, Shri Upendra Vaish to investigate the case. The petitioner submitted all papers to the investigator and as his claim was n...
Shakir @ Govinda S/O Mohammad Bashir Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT460
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. The applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.01.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2004 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.12.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 623/2003 convicting the applicant under Section 25(1-B) (b) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for 1 year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 1 month, has filed this revision petition.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Sub Inspector Bishan Singh Chouhan (PW-1) on 18.06.2003 at about 10.35 p.m. while was patrolling the area, received the information from the informer that the present applicant was standing in front of Machhi Bazar pub area with a knife. Immediately thereafter Bishan Singh Chouhan reached the spot. The accused, seeing them coming, wanted to run away from the spot, but was apprehended. In prese...
Harishankar and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT381
ORDERS.C. Sinho, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been filed by the applicants Harishankar and Chotelal whose application under Section 468 of Cr.PC (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') was dismissed by JMFC Begumganj, Raisen in Regular Trial No. 73/2007. Further applicants have prayed that FIR dated 9-10-2006 and R.T. No. 73/07 pending before JMFC, Begumganj under Section 224 of IPC and 31(B) of Prisoners Act 1900 be quashed.2. Applicants case is that, both the applicants were convicted by Second Additional Sessions Judge Begumganj, Raisen under Sections 302, 34 and 324 of IPC on 10-8-1992 in Sessions Trial No. 87/1986 for life imprisonment and one year sentence. While applicants were in jail, applicant No. 1 Harishankar was released on Parole on 21 -8-1998 and Applicant No. 2 Chotelal on 28-1-1999. However, applicant No. 1 was to surrender on 5-9-1998 and applicant No. 2 on 12-2-1999 after parole but they did not surrender and applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested resp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(MP)282; [2008]305ITR360(MP); [2009]176TAXMAN42(MP)
S.K. Seth, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue. Appeal is directed against the order dated March 31, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITAT' for short) in M.A. No. 61/Ind/2003. By the order impugned the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the application filed by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, this appeal, which was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the application made by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, seeking recalling of the original appellate order dated October 17, 2003, passed in I.T.A. No. 577/Ind/98?(ii) Whether any case as required under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is made out for the purpose of recalling the well reasoned o...
Dr. Ghanshyam Asrani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN345(MP)
Rajendra Menon, J.1. Shri Sanjay Mishra for the petitioner.2. Shri Rohit Arya, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sanjeev Tuli, present in the Court, is directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the petition along with annexures be supplied to Shri Rohit Arya. Even though Shri Arya prays for time to seek instructions and file reply, but considering the nature of relief claimed by the petitioner and the order, which is proposed to be passed, this Court is of the considered view that filing of reply may not be necessary.3. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that more than ten years back, on 4-6-1998, certain raid was conducted by the competent authorities of the Income-tax Department, in the course of search and seizure various properties and assets of the petitioner were seized. Assessment proceedings were held and appeals were also filed against the orders of assessment. After conclusion of the appellate proceedings, the matter has attained finality and it is...
Katua Patel and anr. and Prabhu Patel Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT43
ORDERA.K. Saxena, J.1. These applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for bail and this order shall dispose of both the applications.2. The Police Station, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur registered the Crime No. 343/07 under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC against the applicants. The anticipatory bail applications were filed by the applicants before the Sessions Court, but those applications were rejected. Thereafter, the applications under Section 438 of the Code were filed on behalf of applicants and this Court passed the orders of anticipatory bail on 23-10-2007 and 30-11-2007 in favour of applicants with these conditions that the orders of anticipatory bail shall remain in force for a period of sixty days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the Competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »