Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT286; 2007(3)MPLJ363
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appellant being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit filed for claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,500/- on account of loss of left eye due to the injuries sustained while watching a drama when one of the artists threw a glass of brass, that hit the left eye causing bleeding injury. District Court, Bhopal has dismissed the suit as per judgment and decree dated 20th December, 1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 25-B/99.2. The plaintiff Saroj Basotia along with others went to watch drama 'Skandgupt' of 7.00 p.m. show at Bharat Bhawan. While she was watching the drama one of the actors threw a glass of brass rashly and negligently, that hit the eye of the plaintiff causing bleeding injury. Immediately the information was given to Javed Jaidi, Manager of Bharat Bhawan, who was present at that time. The plaintiff was initially treated by Dr. P.S. Bindra. She was referred for further treatment to Dr. Raizada. Dr. Raizada examined her eye at 9:30 a.m. and came to the conclusion th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP237; 1970MPLJ622
Naik, J.1. The question which has been referred to the Full Bench for decision is whether the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Jagannath v. Harisingh, 1968 Jab LJ 566 = (AIR 1969 Madh Pra 56) and Poonamchand v. Ramprasad, 1968 Jab LJ 583 = (AIR 1969 Madh Pra 44) laid down the correct law. According to the aforesaid decisions, where a suit of a small cause nature is instituted and tried as a regular suit in contravention of the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the judgment so rendered In it is one which is without jurisdiction and nullity.2. The facts giving rise to the reference may shortly be stated as follows!The plaintiff-appellant Tikaram, on 6-5-1965, filed a civil suit in -the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Narsimhapur, inter alia, for the recovery of Rs. 303.45 alleged to be due on account of the balance of unpaid consideration in respect of the sale of the plaintiff's Khasra No. 125, area 9.90 acres, situate in mouza Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)1CompLJ306(MP); 2007(4)MPLJ560
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This company appeal is directed against the order dated 7.5.2007 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 7/2005 whereby, in modification of the earlier directions issued by the Company Court vide order dated 16.4.2007, on intervention by the appellant, the following directions have been issued:(1) The applicant/intervener will give more publicity by advertising the publication for sale of the property belonging to the company in question, namely, Maikal Fibres Ltd. in English daily national newspapers having circulation all over the country. These papers shall include Times of India, Hindu, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Financial Express. It shall also be displayed on the Website of ARC (India) with prominence and with all details so to enable more and more persons to participate in bidding process;(2) In addition to above, the advertisement of sale of property of the company, as aforesaid, shall also be published in one daily regional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP79
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This Company Appeal is directed against the order dated 7-5-2007 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 7/2005 whereby, in modification of the earlier directions issued by the Company Court vide order dated 16-4-2007, on intervention by the appellant, the following directions have been issued:1) The applicant/intervener will give more publicity by advertising the publication for sale of the property belonging to the Company in question namely Maikal Fibres Ltd. in English daily National Newspapers having circulation all over the country. These Papers shall include Times of India, Hindu, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Financial Express. It shall also be displayed on the Website of A. R. C. (India) with prominence and with all details so to enable more and more persons to participate in bidding process;2) In addition to above, the advertisement of sale of property of the Company, as aforesaid, shall also be published in one daily regional lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP83; [1999]98CompCas180(MP); 1998(1)MPLJ32
Khan, J.1. The million -- dollar question that falls for determination is whether the Bank guarantees executed at the behest of appellants in favour of M.P. Electricity Board fall under the protective umbrella of Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short the Act).2. Appellants set up a mini steel plant and Rolling mill and applied for supply of high tension electricity. Respondent Board agreed to supply them 15,000/- KVA power for two years from 1-2-95. An agreement was executed between the parties Clause 27 (a) whereof required a consumer to furnish security by cash deposit or in some other form. Appellants were asked to give five bank guarantees through State Bank of India, Dewas. The terms and conditions also envisaged that the Board shall be competent to enhance the security amount and to apply it towards payments or arrears of any money which may become due by the consumer.3. It appears that appellants fell in red and could not clear their e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1998(80)FLR849]; (1998)IIILLJ501MP; 1996(0)MPLJ560
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. The petitioner/Bank by this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashment of the award (Annexure G) dated July 29, 1986, passed in case No. CGIT/ LR(R) (38) of 1986 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') directing reinstatement of Respondent No.2, back wages and substituting the punishment of the discharge from service vide order dated April 15, 1983 (Annexure-E), being too harsh to the punishment of stopping of two increments with cumulative effect.2. The fact giving rise to this petition are these. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was appointed in the bank service on June 1, 1974 as Cashier-cum-Clerk at the Hamidia Branch of the Bank since 1981. A departmental enquiry was initiated on the charge sheet dated July 10, 1982 (Annexure A) on the following charges:--(a) That you have made in your own hand and authenticated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2001)169CTR(MP)29; [2001]249ITR603(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is, whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in rejecting the application made by the petitioner (assessee) under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The facts in brief are these : 2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1981-82 to 1986-87. 3. It appears that the petitioner (an assesses) was assessed for the aforementioned assessment years by the Assessing Officer. It further appears that penalty under Section 271 of the Act in these years was also imposed by the Assessing Officer. This gave rise to the making of an application (annexure C) by the petitioner under Section 273A of the Act to the Commissioner claiming reduction or waiver of penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer. It is this application that was rejected by the Commissioner by the impugned order which is challenged by the petitioner in this peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP271
S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1 996 (henceforth 'the Act'), against the order dated 15-2-99, passed by XIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in an unregistered Case No. 99. 2. The learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, expressed the view that this case be finally disposed of and, therefore, they were heard finally by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 fifed a written submission after the arguments were over. The learned counsel expressed that the written submission shall supplement his arguments as the aide memoire to the Court. Accordingly, permission was granted. In paragraph 1 of the written submission there is an indication that the respondent No. 1 reserved its right to file appropriate reply to memo of appeal as well as to the application for grant of interim injunction. This Court takes it on the oral submission of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Shri N. Ganpati,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP148; [1958]9STC179(MP)
ORDERB.K. Choudhuri, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of L. P. A. No. 208 of 1956.2. These two appeals are against a common order made by Kotval J. in Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 12 of 1955 and 437 of 1954. The appeals have been filed by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, and the State of Madhya Pradesh against a common respondent Ghanshyamdas son of Chhotelal, Karta and Manager of the joint family firm Chhotelal Keshavram of Rajnandgaon.3. Shortly stated the facts are as follows : The respondent-firm, a registered dealer, was registered under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The business of the respondent is carried on at several places, including Rajnandgaon, and the year of accounting is from Diwali to Diwali. The two cases with which we are dealing arise from the years 1949-50 and 1950-51. As a registered dealer, according to the rules, the respondent-firm was required to submit its return of turnover to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1974MPLJ691; [1974]34STC504(MP)
ORDERR.K. Tankha, J. 1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge an order of assessment of sales tax passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara Circle, on 23rd April, 1960. The period for which the tax was assessed by this order is from 1st October, 1953, to 26th December, 1968. The sales assessed relate to manganese ore raised from the mines of the petitioner which are situated in Balaghat District of Madhya Pradesh and Nagpur District of Maharashtra. But as regards sales of manganese ore raised from the mines in Nagpur District, the period covered is up to 31st October, 1956, i.e., the sales subsequent to this date of manganese ore raised from the mines of Nagpur District have not been included in the assessment. The Sales Tax Officer determined the turnover in a lump sum at Rs. 10,42,153.75. On this turnover the petitioner was assessed to Rs. 31,580 as tax and a sum of Rs. 5,000 was imposed as penalty for failing to apply for registra...
Tag this Judgment!