Madhya Pradesh Court January 2000 Judgments
Dr. Pradeep Shrivastava and ors. Vs. Barkatullah University and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT634
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. Both these writ petitions are founded on identical facts and question of law involved, being one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner Dr. Pradeep Shrivastava (Petitioner No. 1 in W.P. No. 3832/99) is the Head of Department of Limnology in the Barkatullah University and claims to have teaching experience of 20 years at post graduate and M.Phil, level. Dr. Pramod Kumar Mishra (Petitioner No. 2 in W.P. No. 3832/99) is a Professor of Commerce and Director of C.R.I.M. in the Barkatullah University, Bhopal and claims to have experience of 25 years in teaching M.B.A., M.Com., B.Com. and M.Phil, classes. Dr. Nirmal Chand Jain (Petitioner No. 3 in W.P. No. 3832/99) is an Assistant Professor of Commerce and claims to have teaching experience of 23 years of B.Com. and M.Com. classes. Dr. Mohan Kumar Shrivastava (Petitioner No. 4 in W.P. No. 3832/99) is presently Reader and Head of Department of Law in the Barkatullah University. Dr. R....
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas JaIn Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(MP)12
ORDERS. K. Kulshrestha, J.The petitioners in above writ petitions are partners in the firm M/s Bhagwandas Shoblialal Jam, Sagar, and have challenged the notices issued to them under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act on similar facts and grounds. All these petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in M.P. No. 2637/88 and M.P. No. 2671/88 were assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 in respect of their share of property in the firm. The assessment was made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Asst) (presently designated as Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Asst.)) and certain additions in the valuation of the assets were made and assessment orders Annexures A, A-I and A-2 were passed. Against the said additions, the petitioners had filed appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Jabalpur, who confirmed the additions by orders Annexures B, B-1 and B-2. However, on further appea...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhia Alias Sushma (Mst.) Vs. Gambhira
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT55; 2000(2)MPLJ405
R.B. Dixit, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 15-2-1995 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/94 by Fifth Additional Judge to District Judge, Gwalior, whereby decree and judgment of Ninth Civil Judge Second Class, Gwalior, passed in Civil Suit No. 228A/94 was confirmed, the defendant-appellant has come up in appeal praying for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a civil suit against the appellant seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant from making any interference in the suit plot allegedly obtained by him on 30 years' lease from the Government of Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetron Ke Bhumiheen Vyakti. (pattadhriti Ka Pradan Kiya Jana Adhikaron) Adhiniyam, 1984. According to the plaint averment, plaintiff was granted patta of a plot measuring 8.50 x 6.50 meters whereon he had constructed a Pator and Chhapar over the said plot. The defendant's house is situated in the north of the suit plot in the Shabad P...
Tag this Judgment!Hariprakash Rathore Vs. Rajgarh Kshetriya GramIn Bank and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT97
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of Constitution, the petitioner a dismissed employee of a Bank seeks to question the legality and propriety of his dismissal from service. In order to appreciate the grievance urged in the petition, few relevant facts need mention.2. The respondent No. 1, is a Bank established under the Regional Rural Bankers Act, 1976 (Act No. 21/76). On 24-5-1983 (Annexure P-l) the Bank invited applications for the post of officer in the Bank. The petitioner claiming himself to be an eligible candidate applied for the said post. In the application he described himself to belong to Scheduled Tribe caste by name 'Saharia'. The petitioner was interviewed and was selected for the post. Accordingly on 7-12-1983 a letter of appointment Annexure P-2 was issued. This was followed by another letter dated 22-12-1983 (Annexure P-3) by which, the petitioner was appointed as an officer.3. On 14-9-1985 (Annexure P-4...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hameed Khan Vs. Abdul Waheed Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT654
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-4-95 in Civil Suit No. 45-A/84, by I Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, whereby the suit of the defendant-appellant for partition and possession of half the portion of the suit house, was decreed.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for partition alleging that the suit house was purchased by him and his brother the defendant-appellant by their joint funds. However, since the defendant-appellant is claiming right over the whole of the property, the relief for partition in equal parts of the suit house, was sought. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit and averred that the whole of the consideration was paid by the defendant-appellant, and that the plaintiff-respondent herein, did not pay any part of consideration of the suit house. It was only out of love and affection that the name of the respondent-plaintiff was got recorded along with his ow...
Tag this Judgment!Hazi YasIn Vs. Commissioner and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT552
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the certain proceedings and the statements recorded/made under Sections 8 and 9 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 filed an appeal under Section 33 before the Appellate Authority. It was contended before the authority that the proceedings drawn by the Ceiling Authority/Competent Authority were contrary to law. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority holding that the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. When this Court wanted to say that present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as he has written in the petition that it is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court must exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Gilt Pack Limited Vs. Commr. (Appeals), C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(70)ECC397; 2000LC455(MP); 2000(120)ELT73(MP)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of W.P. No. 1832/99 (Gilt Pack Limited and Anr. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs and 1833/990 Gilt Pack Limited and Anr. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs.2. Undisputedly, the petitioner being aggrieved by the fixation of the duty and imposition of the penalty has preferred two appeals before the appellate authority. Alongwith the appeals, application under Section 35F of the Act was filed seeking exemption from pre-deposit. Learned Appellate authority after considering the question raised before it came to the conclusion that if no stay is granted in favour of the petitioner he is not going to suffer irreparably, rejected the application and directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount within a period of three weeks from the date of the order and also directed that if within the said period the amount is not deposited the appeal pending before the appellate authority shall stand dismissed wi...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Chand Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: AIR2000MP245; 2000(2)MPHT14
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. 1. The petitioner had submitted an application on 30th March, 1988 for the award of Samman Nidhi under the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972. The State Government had passed an order on 22nd July. 1994 on the aforesaid application granting to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 750/- per month as Samman Nidhi. The aforesaid order was to become effective from the date of the issue of the said order. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order awarding him the Samman Nidhi should have been made effective from the date of the submission of the application for the purpose and not from the date of issue of the order. 3. The contesting respondents have opposed the writ petition and have filed a counter-affidavit/return denying the claim of the petitioner in regard to the entitlement to get the Samman Nidhi w.e.f. the date of filing of the 'application. In support of this submission the learned Government A...
Tag this Judgment!Pitamberdas Dulichand and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR542(MP)
R.S. Garg, J.1. The short question for determination in the case is whether in the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, the money paid by an assessee on a challan not issued by the Department would be adjusted towards the tax or not. According to the petitioners, the Department is entitled to the tax and not the format or the form of the challan in which the amount is so deposited. While, on the other side, the respondents submit that under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, the deposit challan is issued by the Income-tax Commissioner and as in the present case the amount was not deposited on such a challan, the petitioners are not entitled to adjustment of the tax amount, and are also not entitled to a final order in their favour under the Scheme.2. In the opinion of this court, if the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme issued under the Finance Act are read in their true perspective, the same would show that a person for settlement of tax or for settlement of the dues may make his submissi...
Tag this Judgment!Methodex Systems Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(73)ECC34; 2001(127)ELT44(MP)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the relief of a direction against the respondents that they be directed to return back the complete records which were seized from his office and different branches in search made somewhere in the year 1994 and 1996 excepting the records which have been relied upon by the department for issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. The respondents have issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why action under the Act be not taken against him and with the said notice they supplied him the copies of all such documents on which the department is placing reliance. According to the department, the petitioner is causing unnecessary delay in the matter by not filing the reply to the show cause notice, his insistance upon return of the records is misconceived as in the opinion of the department, the unreturned records would not provide any defence to the petitioner.2. The pa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »