Madhya Pradesh Court March 2009 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.
Phida HussaIn Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3277
R.C. Mishra, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 409 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months. The corresponding judgment passed on 4-4-1994 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T. No. 171/90 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.2. At the relevant point of time, the appellant was posted as Assistant Cashier-cum-Clerk in the Phunga Branch of Kshetriya Grameen Bank, Shahdol. He was tried upon charges of the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 409 of the IPC. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of the appellant in respect of the offence under Section 450 of the IPC. On the contrary, an application for leave to compound the offence under Section 409, IPC has been moved on behalf of the Manager of the Bank (now known as Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Grameen Bank) on the ground that in the departmental enquiry, the appellant was n...
Govind Prasad Dubey Vs. Chandra Mohan Agnihotri and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP159
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. This petition is directed against an order dated 28-1-2009 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2006, by which an application filed by petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC dated 11-11-2008 was rejected.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted:(a) That the petitioner was necessary party in the suit filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2.(b) That the petitioner along with respondent No. 2 entered into a contract to purchase the disputed premises for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. Out of this, Rs. 45,000/- were paid by the petitioner and in part performance of the contract petitioner was in possession of the suit premises. In the aforesaid circumstances, when a suit for eviction was filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2, to protect the interest of petitioner, it was necessary to implead him as defendant.(c) That there was collusion between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 so it became necess...
Tcl India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Murtaza S/O SirajuddIn Malik
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT485
N.K. Mody, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashment of proceedings of the order dated 21-7-07 in Case No. 2925/07 pending in the Court of JMFC, Indore whereby the cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioners under Section 420, IPC.2. Short facts of the case are that a private complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioners and other accused alleging that petitioner No. 1 is a company . It was alleged that the accused Nos. 2 to 5 along with petitioner No. 2 are the directors of the petitioners No. 1-Company and also the authorized signatory. It was alleged that an agreement took place between the parties whereby (Clearing & Forwarding) C & F agency was given to the respondent for a particular period. It was alleged that the agreement was renewed between parties on 1-6-05 and the period of agency was extended up to 31-3-08. It was alleged that respondent invested a huge amount as the C & F agency was given to the respondent up to 31...
Jitendra and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT175
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Cr. Rev. No. 03/2009, which is arising out of the order dated 25-11-2008 passed by JMFC, Neemuch in Cr. Case No. 1182/06 whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under Sections 177 and 178, Cr.PC was dismissed, was maintained the present petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that respondent prosecuted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before JMFC, Neemuch. After taking the cognizance the petitioners made appearance before the learned Court below and moved an application under Section 177/178 of Cr.PC, wherein it was alleged that as per the complaint lodged by the complainant Smt. Varsha Rizwani the alleged offence has taken place at Jaijagat Colony, Indore, therefore the application filed by the petitioners be allowed and criminal case pending against the petitioners be dismissed ...
Danpati Addhahat Bhandar Vs. Ghansham Das Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT31
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. The defendant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2001 in Civil Appeal No. 84-A/2000 by 10th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by which the suit of plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was decreed, by reversing the judgment and decree dated 12-5-2000 in Civil Suit No. 3-A/98 by 4th Civil Judge, Class I, Jabalpur, dismissing the suit of respondent.2. This appeal was admitted on 21-3-2002 on the following substantial question of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the respondent is able to prove his bonafide need for non-residential purpose and that he has no other suitable accommodation for the purpose within the town of Jabalpur is perverse and arbitrary as the respondent has been changing his versions from time to time and further that he was having...
Kedia Great Galleon Ltd. Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT411
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. The petitioner-Company is engaged in business of manufacture of spirit, and is having its industrial unit at Village Sejwaya in District Dhar.2. Spirit manufactured by the petitioner was earlier produced from molasses, which is bye-produce of sugar mills, and it is the basic raw material for the petitioner industrial unit. According to the petitioner-Company, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh is a deficit State for the purpose of production of molasses, and therefore, the said raw material is procured by the petitioner-Company from the other States of the country.3. According to the petitioner-Company, since it was facing lot of difficulties in procuring molasses from the other States, therefore, it thought of an alternative source of raw material, and made an application to the Excise Commissioner of the State Government to manufacture spirit from grains, by way of an alternative arrangement. The aforesaid permission was granted to the petitioner-Company b...
Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT335
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. This appeal is directed under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005, assailing the order dated 17-1-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5692/2006 (S) by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27-3-2006 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, in Revision No. 595/A-89/2001-2002 was dismissed.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that before the Additional Commissioner, the date of hearing was fixed for 4-3-2006 on which date the Additional Commissioner fixed the case for hearing for 24-4-2006 as per Annexure P-5 filed before the Writ Court. The respondent No. 2, Jugal Kishore Pathak, filed an application on 24-3-2006 before the Additional Commissioner and Additional Commissioner on the same date preponed hearing of the case without notice to the appellant, heard the matter on the premises that both the parties had already filed written arg...
Sanjeev Meena Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2465
ORDERIndrani Datta, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for a direction that the sentence passed against him in Cr. appeal No. 44 of 2008 by Sessions Judge, Guna by which, his appeal against judgment passed by JMFC Raghogarh convicting him under Section 224 of IPC and sentencing him for two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- was dismissed on the ground of limitation. That sentence is to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him in Sessions trial No. 321 of 2005 by ASJ, Chachoda on 29-11-2006.2. In Sessions trial No. 321 of 2005, petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with some fine vide judgment dated 29-11-2006 and then petitioner was convicted on 24-3-2007 by the Court of JMFC Raghogarh under Section 224 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. Appeal was preferre...
Dilip Kumar Vs. Vijay Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP165; 2009(4)MPHT326
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. Heard on admission.This appeal is filed by the objector against the judgment and order dated 8-2-2008 passed by the Second Additional District Judge (FTC) Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/08, by the said order, the Second Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the order dated 17-9-2007 passed by the Executing Court, Ganj Basoda, in Execution Case No. 20-A/63x94, whereby objection of the appellant was rejected.2. Short facts of the case are that Maan Singh, father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of respondent No. 3 filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 20A/63x94 against Pratap S/o Hukum Singh and State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Vidisha, in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Basoda, which was decreed on 11-11-1965. Trial Court directed that defendant No. 1 Pratap Singh shall hand over the possession of the disputed land (Survey Numbers 143, 146, 152, 164, 169, 185, 186, 188 and 205 situa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction (India) (P. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN164(MP)
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. The relevant facts briefly are that for the assessment year 2001-02, the respondent filed the return of income along with audit report under Section 44AB showing total income of Rs. 42,18,260. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 4(1), Indore in his assessment order dated 18-8-2004 added inter alia a sum of Rs. 9,91,508 received by the respondent as interest on FDR. Along with other additions, the respondent was assessed to a total income of Rs. 57,68,420 and Demand Notice was issued accordingly. The respondent carried an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Indore and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 9,91,508 received by the respondent by way of interest on FDR after considering the claim of the respondent that the amount of Rs. 9,91,508 was duly credited to the P&L; Account and after finding that the claim of the respondent was genui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »