Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ821
ORDERR.P. Awasthy, J. 1. It is a Misc. Appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (Act in short) against the Judgment and decree dated 11-4-90 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1989, making awards dt. 19-8-1988 and 28-3-1989, made by the arbitrators as rule of the court.2. There is not much dispute about the facts of the case which are as below:--Bhurelal (respondent No. 1) is the father of respondent No. 2 Gajanand and petitioner Govind Prasad, Respondent No. 3 Gopal Prasad Agrawal happens to be the son of Bhurelal. All of the said four persons viz. Bhurelal, Gajanand, Govind Prasad and Gopal Prasad were and are running a partnership business at Itarsi, District Hoshangabad. The name of the said registered partnership concern was and is Mohanlal Hiralal of Itarsi. Respondents 4 and 5 viz. Banwarilal and Gopal Prasad Agrawal were appointed as arbitrators as per arbitration agreement dt. 17-8-1988. The said ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ889
A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This Judgment shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 77/76 (Sampatbai v. Rameshchandra and Ors.).2. This appeal, presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 25-2-1974 rendered by the third Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain in COS No. 7-A/71, thereby granting a decree of specific performance of the contract as regards the suit-house situated at Khachrod.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the house, bearing Municipal No. 33, situated in Derji Ward Khachrod and bounded by the periphery as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, was owned by Shankarlal and Ramchandra (Respondents Nos. 3 and 4). They entered into an agreement to sell on 7-2-1971 with Rameshchandra and Shravankumar (Respondents Nos. 1 and 2) on consideration of Rs. 11,201/- after paying the advance of Rs. 1,000/- and promising the documentation of sale within two months from the date of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1982(10)ELT844(MP)
J.S. Verma, J.1. The Petitioner is an existing company, within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Birlagram, Nagda, in this State. The Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of staple fibre of which sulphuric acid is an essential ingriedient. It also manufactures sulphuric acid and uses or consumes the entire quantity in the manufacture of staple fibre without selling any part of it. The dispute in this petition relates to the excise duty payable on the sulphuric acid so manufactured by the petitioner and used or consumed in its entirety in the manufacture of staple fibre at Nagda during the period between 10-11-1976 and 31-10-1978.2. Prior to 10-11-1976, excise duty on sulphuric acid was levied and collected on the basis of tariff value fixed by the Central Government from time to time under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). However, with effect from 10-11-1976, excise duty on sulphuric acid b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000ACJ275; AIR2000MP63; 2000(2)MPHT278
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the award dated 5-3-1999 of the Claims Tribunal, Durg, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,42.000/-with 12% Interest, as compensation for the death of Sanjay Patil who was found to be 28 years of age on the date of motor accident which took place on 19-5-1996.2. On the question of maintainability of the appeal by the Insurance Company on the 2000 M. P./5 III G-39 grounds of quantum and alleged contributory negligence of the other vehicle which collided with the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling, learned counsel sought permission of this Court to address the Court generally on the question as to under what circumstances the Insurance Company can be allowed to appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal. Since the question of maintainability of the appeal arose in number of other cases filed by the Insurance Company, such as; M.A. 1143/ 99, 520/99, 1139/99. 363/97, 913/98 and M.A. 1195/95, this Court allowed all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003MP117; 2003(2)MPLJ86
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1995 passed by learned XIth, Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in civil suit No. 78-A/90 decreeing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance of contract, the defendants/appellants have preferred this appeal.2. The facts shorn on unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass. In brief the case of plaintiff is that, he is the tenant in the house bearing municipal No. 268 (New No. 381), situated at M.G. Road, Indore, the owner of which is appellant Vijay Bahadur (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 1).3. The appellant No. 1 agreed to sell his house to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and executed a document of agreement of Sale (Ex. P/1) on 6-12-1988 and received Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as an advance money from the plaintiff/respondent. It was agreed between the parties in the said agreement that appellant No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP196; 2002(2)MPHT353
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this writ petition it is imperative to bestow our anxious consideration on the long debate and deliberation that took place consuming quite a speck of time relating to contentious issues which took us in the time machine as the subject related to the past, creating defiant walls and artificial palisade and some times brought us to the present in capitivative fascination having an ineffaceable sense and purpose of modernity and progressiveness which, at times generated a feeling of puzzlement but definitely the incrassation and intenseness of proponements cannot be surveyed with disposition of a disregardant. We are deliberating and articulating about the 'vedas' the 'Apaurusheya'. The Vedas, as has been said, are the means for attaining knowledge, happiness through wisdom and self realisation which are beyond the sphere of perception or inference. So it is said :'PRATYAKSHYEANNU MANENA YASTU POYO NA ENAM BIDANTI VEDANA TASHMAD VEDASYA VEDATA'Possibly, for this rea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP100; 1978CriLJ585; 1978MPLJ238
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. Devisingh the first appellant, had admittedly not attained the age of 16 years on the date of the offence. He was then a 'child' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2(c) of the M. P. Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (No. 15 of 1970) (hereinafter called the 'Bal Adhiniyam'). He was tried for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Penal Code. Be was, along with three other accused, tried by the Sessions Judge, Seoni, who found him guilty of that offence. However, he was dealt with under Section 6 of the Bal Adhiniyam. 2. He preferred this appeal for his acquittal. When the appeal went before a Division Bench, the following question arose, which has been referred to us for opinion:-- 'Whether the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by the provisions of the Bal Adhiniyam, 1970, on Juvenile Courts to try a 'child' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2 (c) of the Adhiniyam for all offences, including those punishable with life impr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD(Cri)131; 2001CriLJ2317; 2001(2)MPLJ172
Arun Mishra, J.1. Sadhria entered to a wedlock on April 26th 1982 with the appellant Arvind Kumar, son of appellant No. 2 Prembai alias Gulabrani. Sadhna committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire on 2-7-82 which is after one month and 7 days of her marriage. Both the appellants have been adjudged guilty of abetement of suicide Under Section 306, IPC and making demand of dowry Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Sentence of 7 years' R.I. Under Section 306, IPC and Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 5.000/- each was imposed, in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo six months R.I.2. Case has a checkered history, Initially both the appellants were acquitted by the trial Court on September 27, 1983. An appeal against acquittal was preferred to this Court. The appeal was allowed. Further evidence was ordered to be recorded. Thereafter the trial Court passed a judgment of conviction on August,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This is a petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of :- (a) writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Lokayukt under the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam”) isonly a recommendatory body and not a prosecuting agency. (b) writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the entire proceedings held in file No.45/99 against the petitioner in the Lokayukt Sangathan as illegal and void ab initio. (c) writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order, passed by Lokayukt directing the SPE for registering a case and proceeding further, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam. (d) writ of certiorari for quashing the FIR leading to registration of case as Crime No.37/07 at SPE Lokayukt, Bhopal in respect of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity ‘the Code’), for having the order-dated 23.03.2010 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) at Bhopal in Special Case No.1/08 rejecting the applications made by the petitioner for discharge nullified and also for quashing of the charge sheet, so far as it relates to him. 2. In that case, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B of the IPC and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act has been taken against the petitioner, a superannuated officer of Indian Administrative Service, and co-accused Narsingh Mandal and Prakash Chand Sethi who, at the relevant point of time, wererespectively Chairman and Deputy General Manager (Store and Purchase) of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). 3. Relevant allegations, as contained in the charg...
Tag this Judgment!