Madhya Pradesh Court September 1998 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.
M.P. Shanker Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(MP)201
ORDERS.K. KULSIMSTHA, J.:This petition has been filed challenging the order of the CIT (Annexure 'G') by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner for waiver of the penalty and the interest filed under s. 273A of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Sec. 273A in the relevant year reads as under:'273A. Power to reduce or waive penalty etc. in certain cases.-W Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the CIT may, in his discretion, whether on his own motion or otherwise.(i) reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or impassable on a person under cl. (i) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-s. (1) of s. 139, or(ii) reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person under cl. (iii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271; or(iii) reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable under sub-s. (8) of s. 139 or s. 215 or s. 217 or the pe...
Mrs. Sharada Pullela Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(MP)27
ORDERS.K. KULSHRESTHA, J.:This petition has been filed challenging the order of the CIT (Annexure 'G'), by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner for waiver of the penalty and the interest filed under s. 273A of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Sec. 273A in the relevant year reads as under:'273A. Power to reduce or waive penalty etc. in certain cases.-(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the CIT may, in his discretion, whether on his own motion or otherwise.-(i) reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or impassable on a person under cl. (i) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-s. (1) of s. 139; or(ii) reduce or waive the amount of penalty impose d or impassable on a person under cl. (iii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271; or(iii) reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable under sub-s. (8) of s. 139 or s. 215 or s. 217 or ...
Suneeta Dharmendra Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ556
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 20-7-1998, transferring her from the Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 4, Gwalior to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bhind, the petitioner who is employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher for teaching the subject of Hindi has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order.2. I have heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the respondents, and have carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner's husband who is also a Trained Graduate Teacher is employed in the Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 in the district of Gwalior, for teaching the subject of Hindi. Both the petitioner as well as her husband are posted in different Kendriya Vidyalayas situate in the district of Gwalior from before the passing of the impugned order. Prior to her posting at Gwalior, the...
Vijay Agrawal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1999MP29; 1999(1)MPLJ640
ORDERDeepak Verma, J.1. On 11-7-1998, show-cause notice was directed to be issued to Respondents. It was further directed, by way of interim relief, that Respondents be restrained from charging addi-tional amount for supply of Itemised bill. The said order was modified, in presence of the counsel for parties, on 12-8-1998, restraining Respondent No. 3 from charging additional amount for supply of Itemised bill from the Petitioner.2. Respondent No. 3 has submitted its reply to the show-cause notice. In view of the Reply and on account of the stand taken by Respondent No, 3, I deem it fit to take-up this matter for hearing on merit.3. I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for parties on merit, perused the record.4. In this petition, filed under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is not challenging any order passed by Respondents, but, is defying the conditions of licence, granted by Department of Tele Communication to Respondent No. 3, which is running Cellular...
Hari S/O Late Shri Khanoomal Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ604
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Perused the record.3. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 7-10-1997 passed by the Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior informing the petitioner that on attaining the age of 58 years on 10-9-1998, he has to retire from service w.e.f. 30-9-1998, the petitioner has now approached this court seeking quashing of the aforesaid order. He has also prayed for a direction requiring the respondent to allow him to continue to remain in service till his attaining the age of 60 years.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon in support of the writ petition on the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 1/98 being M. P. Shaskiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 1998 issued by the State Government, whereunder Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules was amended providing extension of the age of the superannuation to 60 years subject to certain conditions.5. The contention of the petitioner is that by v...
Varchand Vs. Guddibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC488
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The unsuccessful applicant/husband has directed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 1.1.1998 rendered by the II ASJ Ratlam in Criminal Revision No. 116/97 thereby learned ASJ with some modification affirmed the order dated 10th September, 1997 passed by JMFC Alot in Misc. Cri. Case No. 52/96 granting maintenance @ 400/-per month in favour of Guddibai, wife of the present applicant.2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant are husband and wife. The non-applicant filed the petition in the Court of JMFC Alot against the appellant for grant of maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the applicant after marriage ill-treated the non-applicant and deserted her. As such she is living separately from her husband alongwith her parents. It is also stated in the petition that after deserting the non-applicant, the applicant contracted second marriage with one S...
Anandilal Malani Vs. M.P. Carbide and Chemicals Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: (2000)1CompLJ232(MP)
ORDERD.N. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner assails the order of termination of his services. By order, dated 10/29 November, 1986, terminating his services from the respondent company, namely, M.P. Carbide & Chemicals Ltd. from the post of Executive President, have been terminated.2. The only fact relevant to be mentioned is that the petitioner was appointed as an Executive of the company on 11 September, 1984, on terms and conditions contained in the order of appointment (Annexure-C). One of the terms of his appointment is that his services would be governed by the rules and regulations of the company framed from time to time.3. Shri S.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the respondent company has 51% of equity shareholding of respondent No. 2, M.P. State Industries Corporation, and on its management has more than 50% of directors nominated by the Government and financial institutions owned by the...
Shyam Lal Vyas Vs. Inderchand JaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ121
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant as well as the learned counsel representing the defendant-tenant/respondent.2. Perused the record.3. The applicant feels aggrieved by an order dated 27-3-1998, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in the proceedings under Section 23-A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, whereunder it has rejected the application filed by the present applicant under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the earlier order dated 16-12-1997, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority.4. The applicant had filed an application seeking eviction of the tenant/respondents from the accommodation in dispute initiating the proceedings under Section 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), claiming to fall within the ambit of the special category of the landlords contemplated thereunder.5. It is not in dispute that the...
Shyamlal Since Deceased Through His L.R. Arun Kumar Pandey Vs. State o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ527
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. The accused/appellant stands convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) for committing criminal misconduct by having demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from complainant Umesh Kumar Pandey and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year on each of the above counts and also to pay fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 5(2) of the Act, by judgment dated 17th June, 1988 in Spl. Cr. Case No. 14/1986 by Special Judge and 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa.2. The accused/appellant was a Patwari at the relevant time and posted at Boda-bagh, Rewa and thus a public servant. Undisputably, the complainant Umesh Kumar Pandey (P.W.1) had purchased agricultural land by registered deed, copy of which is Ex.P/1, from one Sukhwati and had submitted an application before the appellant Shyamlal for mutation of his name on the said land.3. The prosecution case is that...
Shyamlal (Deceased by Lr) Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3782
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. The accused/appellant stands convicted under Section 161 of the IPC & under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) for committing criminal misconduct by having demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-from complainant Umesh Kumar Pandey and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year on each of the above counts and also to pay fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 5(2) of the Act, by judgment dated 17th June, 1988 in Spl. Cr. Case No. 14/1986 by Special Judge & I Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa.2. The accused/appellant was a Patwari at the relevant time and posted at Boda-Bagh, Rewa and thus a public servant. Indisputably, the complainant Umesh Kumar Pandey (P.W. 1) had purchased agricultural land by registered-deed, copy of which is Ex. P/l, from one Sukhwati and had submitted an application before the appellant Shyamlal for mutation of his name on the said land.3. The prosecution case is that the accused/ app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »