Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: madhya pradesh Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 62 results (0.089 seconds)

Apr 20 2004 (HC)

Vallabh Das Gupta and ors. Vs. Smt. Geeta Bai

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-20-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)MPHT89; 2004(3)MPLJ37

..... full and final settlement of the case.2. counsel for the parties appearing in this appeal states that the parties have arrived at the aforesaid settlement with the aid of mediator shri t.c. singhal, advocate.3. considering the facts of the case the combined decree in all the three suits is modified to rs. 7,70,000/-. the amount has ..... /- was passed against all the appellants. on mediation the appellants agreed to pay rs. 7,70,000/- to the plaint/decree holder. plaintiff has agreed to give up his claim for rs. 1,99,198/- and accepted the ..... s.s. jha, j.1. this case was referred under section 89 to shri t.c. singhal, advocate to mediate and help the parties to arrive at an amicable solution. after reference mediator arrange mediation talks between the parties and after the mediation sittings parties had settled their case in all the three appeals. in all the three cases decree for rs. 9,69,198 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (HC)

Mukesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)MPHT64

s.l. kochar, j. 1. the appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15th march, 2001, delivered by the learned additional sessions judge, indore, in sessions trial no. 23/1999, thereby convicting him under section 302 of the ipc and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with fine of rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional ri for 2 years.2. briefly stated the prosecution case before the trial court was that on 9-11-1998 meharsingh (p.w. 8), lakhansingh (p.w. 9), ranveer (p.w. 10), deceased balveersingh and their companion lakhan came with their truck at indore. they stayed near the hotel (dhaba) of acquitted co-accused balram and cooked vegetable by their own. for the purposes of preparation of roti (chapati) they had given flour to balram for which they were required to pay 30 rupees as labour charges. when they received roti, the same were in burnt condition on which deceased balveersingh and his companions meharsingh (p.w. 8), lakhansingh (p.w. 9) and ranveer (p.w. 10) went to balram and complained about preparation of roti. on this complaint they entered into verbal quarrel during which balram abuses filthy to the witnesses and when deceased balveersingh objected filthy abuses, balram called his servants and other persons who all reached on the spot including the present appellant. deceased balveersingh was caught by some persons and appellant struck a blow by knife (chhura) which landed on the left side of the chest of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2004 (HC)

Subhash Chandra and ors. Vs. Smt. Manjula and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-07-2004

Reported in : AIR2005MP72; 2004(3)MPHT159; 2004(2)MPLJ557

subhash samvatsar, j.1. this appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 23-12-85 passed by 5th addl. district judge, indore in civil appeal no. 251/84 which was preferred by the appellant plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 14-3-84 passed by 7th civil judge, class i, indore in civil suit no. 124-a/81.2. brief facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession and damages against the respondent alleging that the plaintiff is owner of agricultural land situated at village chitwana having an area of 22 acres and 68 decimal. he has entered into an agreement to sale the said land with the respondents for rs. 40,000/- vide agreement ex. p-1, dated 7-6-76. out of the said amount, an amount of rs. 21,000/- was paid at the time of agreement and it was agreed that the balance amount of rs. 19,000/- shall be paid at the time of execution of registered document. the possession of the land was also handed over to the defendants. as per the plaintiff it was agreed that registered sale deed shall be executed only after vacation of stay order passed by 6th civil judge class ii, indore in civil suit no. 277-a/72 in which an injunction was passed against the plaintiff from restraining him from transferring the property. as per the plaint allegations the injunction was vacated on 27-9-76 and this fact was informed to the defendants but the defendants did not take any steps for execution of the sale deed. plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2004 (HC)

Surendra Kumar Rungta Vs. Pawan Kumar Surekha and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-07-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)MPHT238; 2004(3)MPLJ412

orderk.k. lahoti, j.1. the petitioner has filed this petition assailing order dated 19-3-2004 passed by fourth civil judge class-1, katni in civil original suit no. 3-a/2001 by which the defendant's application under order vi rule 17 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to in short 'the code') has been rejected.2. the trial court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that in the case plaintiffs have closed their evidence and the proposed amendment amounts to amend pleadings extensively. the proposed amendment has been sought to delay the proceedings and is not necessary for the just decision of the case.3. the learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case. the petitioner is raising pleas which are necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. the suit is filed on the ground that the document in question is mortgage deed while there is no mortgage deed executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant. in fact, it is sale-deed which was executed on 8-5-1972. the petitioner is raising plea in respect of factual position that the aforesaid sale deed was acted' upon between the parties and after execution of sale-deed on 8-5-1972, defendant/petitioner applied for mutation of the land in his own name. the tehsildar, katni invited objections in this regard and smt. kamla bai, grand mother of plaintiff no. 1, consented to the mutation. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2004 (HC)

Sunderlal Chourasiya Vs. Tejila Chourasiya and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-17-2004

Reported in : AIR2004MP138; 2004(2)MPLJ193

ordera.k. shrivastava, j.1.this appeal has been filed by plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22-4-1996 passed in civil suit no. 5-a/95 by first additional district judge, seoni.2. the suit of plaintiff is for declaration that he is having 1/2 share in the suit house and defendants no. 2 to 8 have no right, title or interest therein; the plaintiff further prayed that he is entitled for partition, separate possession and compensation for use of the suit property by defendants 2 to 8. the family tree of plaintiff and defendants is as under : kariya barai ____________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | hukam chand kapoor chand mool chand (died 1956-57 (died 11-4-88 issueless (died 1934) | smt. budhha bai (wife) | | | | | (died 21-12-81 ex. p/8) | | | | | ______________________________________ | | | ______________ sunder lal teji lal | chhiddilal(died 9-11-1987) (plantiff) (deft. 1) | ______________________________________________| |krishna bai raj kumari bai(1st wife) (2nd wife)died-1969 (deft. 4.) | | | | | ________________________________________________________ | | | | | anita arti ku. jyoti | (deft.6.) (deft.7.) (deft.8.) | ________________________________________ | | |mukesh rakesh anjna bai (deft.2) (deft.3) (deft.5)3. the suit house is constructed on plot no. 95/2 and plot no. 96/3, a map thereof is annexed to the plaint. on the ground-floor of this house defendants 2 to 8 are residing, on first floor the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2004 (HC)

Naresh and ors. Vs. Smt. Dauja and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-22-2004

Reported in : AIR2005MP45; 2004(3)MPHT389; 2004(3)MPLJ298

subhash samvatsar, j.1. this appeal is filed by the defendants challenging judgment and decree dated 16-7-96 passed by addl. district judge, gohad, distt. bhind in civil appeal no. 134/92 whereby he has confirmed judgment and decree dated 13-5-88 passed by civil judge class ii, gohad in civil suit no. 120-a/86.2. brief facts of the case are that respondent plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for cancelling the mutation in the name of defendants.3. this appeal is admitted by this court on 18-2-2002 on following substantial questions of law :--'have the courts below before passing of the impugned decree not adverted to the fact that various minors, as appellants were then, were not properly represented by a guardian ad litem and in first appeal by a properly authorised next friend ?'4. the gist of the question is whether the judgment and decree passed by two courts below is vitiated as some of the defendants were minors, who are now the appellants were not properly represented by guardian ad litem. to answer the aforesaid question it is necessary to refer to some material facts of the case. the suit was filed against one bhopat, defendant no. 1 and nabbey, defendant no. 2. notices of defendant no. 2 returned with an endorsement that defendant no. 2 nabbey is dead. thereafter, an application for bringing his heirs on record was moved and the heirs were brought on record by order dated 17-4-84. some of the l.r.'s were minor at that time. mother of l.r. no. 1 ram .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2004 (HC)

M.P. Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Kalekhan

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-02-2004

Reported in : I(2005)ACC71; AIR2004MP248; 2004(2)MPHT412

ordersubhash samvatsar, j.1. this revision is filed by the defendant challenging an order dated 18-12-98 passed by 6th addl. district judge, gwalior in civil suit no. 1-b/91 whereby issue no. 5 is tried as preliminary issue and decided against the present petitioner.2. brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for compensation for the injuries sustained by him due to the fall of electric pole on his body on 16-6-88. due to the said accident the respondent plaintiff suffered various injuries and, therefore, he filed the present suit for compensation on 25-6-91. in the plaint it is alleged that the cause of action to the present suit was accrued on 16-6-88 and the period of limitation for claiming compensation is three years which expired on 15-6-91. however, at that time the court was closed due to summer vacation and 22-6-91 was the last day of summer vacation. 23-6-91 was sunday. 24-6-91 was a holiday due to ed-ul-zuha and the suit was filed on 25-6-91 i.e., the court reopening day, hence the suit is within limitation.3. defendant raised a plea that the present suit is governed by article 72 of the limitation act and the limitation for filing a suit is one year, hence the present suit is barred by limitation. on the basis of the pleadings court has framed several issues out of which issue no. 5 relates to limitation. this issue was tried as a preliminary issue and decided against the defendant, hence this revision.4. learned counsel for the applicant urged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2004 (HC)

Mohan Lal Marco Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-07-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)MPHT59; 2004(4)MPLJ461

orderk.k. lahoti, j.1. petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order (annexure p-4) passed by the additional commissioner, jabalpur, dated 3-12-2003, by which, the petition, challenging the no confidence motion passed against him, has been dismissed.2. short facts of the case are that the petitioner was president of janpad panchayat, niwas. a no confidence motion was moved against the petitioner. the notice was served on the prescribed authority, who is the collector, mandla to convene the meeting to consider the no confidence motion. the collector on receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of m.p. panchayat (gram panchayat ke sarpanch tatha up-sarpanch, janpad panchayat tatha zila panchayat ke president tatha vice-president ke virudh avishwas prastav) niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'niyam' for short), and after satisfying himself about the admissibility of notice fixed a date, time and place for the meeting of janpad panchayat to consider the no confidence motion. notice in this regard was issued by the collector, mandla annexure p-1 and on 31-7-2003 the meeting was convened. in that meeting no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. assailing the aforesaid, petitioner filed a petition under section 28 (4) of the m.p. panchayat raj avam gram swaraj adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'adhiniyam' for short) before the additional commissioner, jabalpur, which was dismissed by order (annexure p-4).3. learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2004 (HC)

Smt. Kamla Durga Solanki Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-28-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)MPHT76; 2004(2)MPLJ140

s.s. jha, j.1. this appeal is filed against the judgment of the single bench holding therein that the motion of no-confidence passed against respondent no. 4 is invalid. it is contended that after passing of the no-confidence motion, appellant was elected subsequently as the president of zila panchayat, morena under section 32 of the madhya pradesh panchayat raj and gram swaraj adhiniyam, 1993.2. brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 4 shrimati guddi bai was elected as member of zila panchayat, morena and thereafter she was elected as president of the zila panchayat under section 32 of the madhya pradesh panchayat raj and gram swaraj adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter, referred as the 'act'). after her election, an application was submitted to the commissioner, chambal division by some of the members of the panchayat proposing to move motion of co-confidence against the elected president. on receiving the letter of the members, commissioner issued notice (annexure p-3), dated 12-8-2002 (annexed with the writ petition), fixing a date to consider the motion of no-confidence and appointed collector, district morena as presiding officer to conduct the motion. meeting was convened on 20-8-2002 and in the meeting, motion of no-confidence against the president was carried out and she was removed from the post of the president. dispute has been raised under the provisions of section 35 (4) of the adhiniyam to the state government and the representation has been rejected vide .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2004 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-27-2004

Reported in : (2005)196CTR(MP)644; [2005]272ITR583(MP)

r.v. raveendran, c.j.1. the respondent (assessee) claimed that it installed and put to use a bio-gas plant at the cost of rs. 90,41,057 in may 1992. in the return for the assessment year 1993-94, it claimed depreciaiton. the income-tax officer while passing the order of assessment dated february 29, 1996, restricted the depreciation to 50 per cent, on the ground that the bio-gas plant was commissioned and put to use for less than 180 days, that is only from october 9, 1992. the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) by his order dated august 13, 1996, upheld the disallowance of depreciation of 50 per cent, of bio-gas plant. for this purpose, the assessing officer and the appellate authority relied on the statement said to have been made by the representative of the assessee on february 28, 1996, at the time of hearing that the bio-gas plant was commissioned on october 9, 1992, and was put to use from that date. a further appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed by the income-tax appellate tribunal, indore bench, by order dated october 4, 2002, with a direction to the assessing officer to allow the claim of the assessee regarding depreciation by treating the bio-gas plant as being in use from may, 1992 itself. the appellate tribunal accepted the case of the assessee after examination of the documents and held that the bio-gas plant was installed and put to use in may, 1992, as was evident from the assessee's letter dated may 19, 1992 to the supplier of the bio-gas plant, .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //