Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Prahlad Singh, Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT410
ORDERA.P. Shrivastava, J.1. M.Cr.C. No. 7260/08 (Prahlad Singh v. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C. No. 6707/08 (Makhan Das v. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C. No. 5879/08 (Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C. No. 6760/08 (Sabba and Ors. v. State of M.P.) are being disposed of by this common order as the point for consideration in all these Miscellaneous Criminal Cases are the same. The point for consideration is that whether the period for payment of amount of fine, ordered in judgment in an appeal, can be extended by this Court in view of Section 482, Cr.PC?2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under:In M.Cr.C. No. 7260/08 (Criminal Appeal No. 497/2001), petitioner Prahlad Singh has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him with an imposition of fine amount of Rs. 3,000/-. It has further been directed that he shall surrender before the Trial Court to deposit the amount of fine within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of...
Peer Mohammad Saeed and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT195
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. The appellants had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that they are the owner of an area 4.28 acre of Survey No. 1248 situated near Bridge Paatra, Galla Mandi Road, Muttasil Jhirya Shifa Shah, Bhopal. This land was granted by His Highness late Nawab Haji Hamesdullah Khan, the then ruler of Bhopal State along with other land of Khasra No. 8006/1, area 0.34 acre Jahangirabad, Bhopal to Janab Hazrat Shah Mohd. Yaqoob Sahib, son of Peer Abu Ahmad Sahib. The grant is by Inayatnama (Sanad) duly signed and certified by Secretary, Govt. of Bhopal dated 5th June, 1939. The land of Khasra No. 1248 measuring 4.28 acre is bounded as under:East: Land of Khasra No. 1279 and Pastra river.West: Land of Khasra No. 1249 and slaughter house.North: Road from Pul Bobda to Bharat Talkies.South: Nala.2. After partition, land of Khasra No. 1248 devolved and divided between the appellants and their mother Batul Begum. After the death of Smt. Batul Begum, her share devol...
Hidayatulla Vs. Liyakat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT302
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14-10-1999 passed by District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 22-A/99, whereby suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract was dismissed.2. The appellant entered into an agreement with the respondents/defendants on 17-12-1985 for purchase of house which consists of three rooms and veranda situated at Jehangirabad, Bhopal for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 17-12-1985, i.e., at the time of execution of the agreement and Rs. 4,000/- was paid on 1-6-1986. The respondents despite the agreement did not execute the sale deed and, therefore, the suit was filed on 13-10-1988.3. The respondents filed their written statements and denied the claim of the appellant on the ground that as per agreement dated 17-12-1985, the appellant was to pay Rs. 40,000/- but he had paid Rs. 14,000/- only and in spite of notice (Exh. P-4), dated 21-9-1987 did not execute th...
Chairman, M.P. State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Mulu @ Moolchandra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT168
A.P. Shrivastava, J.1. Appellant/defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 18-4-06 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahar, District Bhind, in Civil Suit No. 2-B/05, by which the compensation for Rs. 3,00,000/- was allowed by the Court to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2.2. As per the plaint allegations, on 31-3-2003 early in the morning thedeceased Santosh who was the son of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was going from his Village Rahawali Uwari to Indurkhi fair by his bicycle. It is alleged that when the deceased reached the agricultural fields of Baccha Saheb and Mahesh Singh, an electricity supply wire snapped and fell on the side wall of the canal. The deceased Santosh came into contact with the falling wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. The deceased was a young man of about 26 years of age and was earning about Rs. 5,000/- per month from...
Cit Vs. Shalimar Housing and Finance Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: [2010]321ITR157(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was admitted on the following substantial question of law:Whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the action taken by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is not justified despite the fact that a finding had been recorded by the said authority as regards the suppression of work-in-progress for a sum of Rs. 18,41,35,526?2. The facts which are necessary to be adumbrated for adjudication of this appeal are that a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132(1) of the Act in the premises of the respondent-assessee and the said operation commenced on 21-2-2002 and was concluded on 13-3-2002. The assessing officer framed the block assessment order under Section 158BC on 17-9-2004 and made several additions against the assessee.3. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the assessee pre...
Smt. Vandana Tiwari Vs. Shri Ajay Pande and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT299
ORDER1. This petition is directed against an order dated 28-3-2009 by Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 146-A/05 by which petitioner's application under Section 10 read with Section 151, CPC praying for staying the civil suit filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner lodged an FIR against the defendant which has been quashed by the High Court in Misc. Cr. Case No. 9852/06 on 6-2-2007 but an SLP is pending before the Apex Court and till the decision by the Apex Court, further proceedings in the civil suit deserve to be stayed.3. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, record and the impugned order perused.4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration, partition and perpetual injunction against the respondent in which the respondent No. 1 set up a case of a Will in his favour. After filing of the written statement, petitioner lodged an FIR at Police Station, Ha...
Vimalchand Vs. Arora Distillery Pvt. Ltd. Company and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT484
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 12-3-2008 passed by X additional District Judge, Indore in Execution Case No. 19/05.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision lies in narrow compass, the non-applicant No. 1 on he basis of an Arbitration Award dated 1-8-1994 passed against the non-applicant No. 2 submitted an application MJC No. 21/99 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act of 1940') before the District Judge, Vidisha for making the award rule of Court. The said application was contested by the non-applicant No. 2. The District Judge, Vidisha after recording the evidence led by the parties vide order dated 28-2-2003 passed a decree in favour of the non-applicant No. 1 and against non-applicant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 14,14,275/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 23-5-1994 till payment.3. The non-applicant No. 1 decree holder applied for execu...
Gyanendra Tripathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT155
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Petitioner has filed this revision against framing of charges vide order dated 15-10-2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 119/08 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.2. On 11-9-1989, M/s. Mangaldeep, a Partnership Firm, had been granted cash credit (Hypothecation Limit) of Rupees Five lacs and term loan of Rs. Two lacs by United Commercial Bank. Mr. Keshav Das Agarwal, who was proprietor of the Proprietorship Firm, M/s. Mangaldeep, created equitable mortgage of his residential house and one Ratanlal Jain executed guarantee agreement to secure the credit facility. On 20-7-1990 a draft letter of deposit of title deeds from the mortgagor was written by Keshav Das Agarwal in favour of the Manager, United Commercial Bank, High Court Road, Gwalior. In the aforesaid letter, it has been mentioned that premises No. 37/342 situated at Deedwana Oli, Lashkar, was mortgaged as equitable mortgage for repayment of all advances made to M/s. Mangaldeep, a Partnership Firm. S...
Ratilal Lad Vs. Rasiklal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP243
ORDERP.K. Jaiswal, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 22-A(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') against an order dated 21-10-2004, passed by the respondent No. 2 in Ref. No. 25-CA (229)/02 exonerating the respondent No. 1, a Chartered Accountant and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India of the charges levelled against him by the petitioner in his complaint dated 25-4-2002 (Annex. P-3).2. The material facts leading to this revision petition are that Shri Gokul Chandramaji Mandir Trust, Burhanpur is a registered public trust. In the year 1969-70 the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Auditor and auditing the accounts of the said Trust. On 17-2-1991 he was appointed as Trustee of the said Trust. Shri Gokul Chandramaji Mandir Trust is registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 and its registration number is 62. The respondent No. 1 was auditing the accounts of the said Trust since 1969-70. The Trust wa...
Manish @ Dal Vishwakarma and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT305
ORDER1. This petition is directed against order dated 15-4-2008 by District Magistrate, Seoni in Criminal Case No. 17/2003 by which the petitioner No. 1 was externed under Sections 5,6 and 12 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' for short).2. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the Collector, Seoni vide order dated 26-2-2008 called a report in respect of activities of petitioner No. 1 from Superintendent of Police, Seoni. The aforesaid information was furnished to the District Magistrate, Seoni by the Superintendent of Police on 27-3-2008 and the Collector, Seoni while passing order (Annexure P-1) took into consideration the aforesaid report in Paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order. It was submitted that without extending an opportunity to explain the aforesaid circumstances appearing in the report, the order was passed by which the petitioner No. 1 was externed vide order Annexure P-l for a period of one year. The petitioner prefe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »