Madhya Pradesh Court October 2000 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.
Subhashchandra Barnasia Vs. M.P.E.B. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT288; 2001(3)MPLJ622
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J. 1. When a query was made to Shri Patwardhan asking him to make submissions and inform the Court as to which remarks have been considered for degrading the petitioner, and refusing him to grant higher pay and increments, Shri Patwardhan was unable to answer the query. He produced the record as if the Court should read the record and draw the inference. This act leads this Court to two conclusions, (i) that Shri Patwardhan is unable to answer the query, resultantly it means that the respondents are unable to justify their action and (ii) that there is nothing with the respondents to justify their action and, therefore, their lawyer is unable to answer the query made by the Court.2. Two pages information has been put up before the Court in view of the previous order passed by this Court. It shows that adverse remarks have been passed against the petitioner pertaining to year 1985 but that was conveyed to him on 11-4-86. The adverse remark has been passed against him i...
Gajanand Vs. Ramnath and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT337
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit by the Trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.2. Briefly stated the facts are-- the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and also for recovery of possession from defendant No. 2, who allegedly has committed trespass, as per the plaintiff, over the suit property, which comprises of agricultural land in area six bighas situated in village Indrapura, Tehsil and District Sheopurkalan. The agreement to sell the disputed property was entered into by the defendant, Ram-nath, with the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit the defendant executed the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff.3. The defendant No. 1 admitted the plaint allegations in the written statement filed by him.4. The defendant No. 2 in the written statement fifed by him denied the plaint allegation...
Hardayal Vs. Aram Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP203
Arun Mishra, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree passed by two Courts below. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the sale-deed dated 29-7-85 executed by the deceased Ladaitibai in favour of Aram Singh and Khemraj, as void. The sale-deed dated 29-7-85 related to the agricultural land comprised in Survey No. 1634 area 0.40, & Survey No. 1652 area 2.40 acres. Plaintiff alleged that the said lands were owned and possessed by one Buddhe and after his death, his widow Ladaitibai succeeded. She did not execute any such sale-deed. It was executed by putting some impostor before the Registrar of Registration. Ladaiti Bai died on 18-2-85 before the date of execution of sale-deed which was fraudulently got executed. The sale-deed is illegal and void. Plaintiff himself claimed to be a close relation of the deceased Ladaitibai. Hence, he filed the suit. 3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement contested that the sale-deed w...
Ganesh Vidya Mandir Higher Secondary School and anr. Vs. R.P.F. Commis ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR924]; (2001)ILLJ1019MP
A.M. Sapre, J.1. In this petition, the question is essentially regarding applicability of the Act (Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) to the Educational Institutions run by the petitioner No. 1 Society. And secondly, if that is applicable then for which period?2. Similar questions came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of M.P, Shikshak Congress and Ors. v. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur and Ors. 1999 (1) SCC 396 : 1999-I-LLJ-476. These questions were answered by their Lordships of Supreme Court vide their decision dated December 1, 1998.3. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that since the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered during pendencyof this writ petition, the Authorities concerned in this case had no occasion to examine the issue in the light of the decision and the guidelines given by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Shikshak Congress and Ors. v. R.P.F. Commissioner Jabalpur and Ors., d...
Ravindra Kumar Shivhare Vs. Smt. Dhannobai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT405
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J.1. The plaintiff/appellant has come-up in the present appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit by the trial Court which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and the ejectment of the tenant from the house situated at Ghosipura, Ward No. 31, Shivpuri. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the said house by a registered sale deed dated 28-11-84 from one Dhannobai, defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 5000/- and obtained the possession of it. The other two defendants Jagannath and Vijay Singh had consented to the sale. It is alleged that having sold the said house, defendant/respondent No. 1 obtained the house on rent from the plaintiff. Rent note was also executed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. Defendant did not pay the rent in spite of the notice dated 16-12-94. Defendants 1 and 2 refused to take notice, hence the suit for reco...
Girraj Kishore Vs. Kamla Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT286
A.K. Mishra, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant on the allegations that the defendant was occupying the suit accommodation on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The plaintiff required the suit accommodation for bonafide requirement of residence of her sons. She was not possessing any other accommodation within the limits of Municipal Council, Guna. She also required the suit accommodation for reconstruction which could not be done without vacating the same. The defendant was not paying the rent and rent was in arrears. The defendant has denied tenancy as well as ownership of the plaintiff. The defendant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 13,415/-. Hence...
Smt. Munnibai and Others Vs. Arun Kumar and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ960; 2001(1)MPHT291
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Murwara dated 11-1-1994.2. On 14-6-1990, when Panchamlal Gupta (deceased) was sleeping in his house, truck No. M.P.-19/0550 owned by M/s. Shri Refractories Industries Pvt. Ltd., driven by Arun Kumar and insured with the Oriental Insurance Co., smashed the house, resulting in injuries to Panchamlal Gupta, due to which he died. A case was registered under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver.3. Allegation is that truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver as a result of which accident took place at 2.30 A.M.4. Claimants are widow and minor sons of the deceased. Panchamlal Gupta was running a shop, doing grocery and ready-made garments business. He was 39 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 1,500/- permonth. Family was dependent on him. Total claim for Rs. 11,00,000/- has been made.5. Respondents submit that no document demonstrating he...
Kamal Kishore and Another Vs. Ramswarup and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT349
A.K. Mishra, J. 1. The plaintiffs/appellants have come up in the present successive appeal. Suit filed by them was dismissed by the Trial Court. First appeal has also failed.Plaintiffs Ramkunwarbai, Kamal Kishore and Tilak Singh filed the suit alleging that on 11-3-65 Amar Singh sold the entire land admeasuring 25 bigha 6 Biswa bearing survey Nos. 70, 75, 245 and 287 situated at Village Kurwai, District Vidisha to Gorelal, Ramdheer Singh, Balram Singh and Baktobai. Plaintiffs came to know that Amar Singh sold the disputed land on 9-8-67 to Baktobai and others. Amar Singh was the husband of plaintiff Ramkunwarbai and father of Kamal Kishore and Tilak Singh. It is alleged that the property belonging to the minor plaintiff could not have been sold either by Amar Singh or even by Ramkunwarbai - their mother or by Gorelal - the elder brother of Kamal Kishorc and the Tilak Singh and son of Ramkunwarbai. If the sale-deed has been executed, the same is illegal for want of sanction in accordanc...
Ghanashyam Vs. Bal Mukund
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT283
A.K. Mishra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below. Suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction and restoration of possession which was decreed by the Civil Judge by judgment and decree dated 11-8-94. Plaintiff alleged that he obtained possession of the said property under the sale-deed. After putting the lock he went to Raghavgarh. In two rooms two other tenants were already residing at the time of Amaribai. Taking the advantage of the plaintiffs absence, lock was broken by the defendant and he illegally committed trespass. Police report of the same was also lodged. On refusal to vacate the accommodation suit had been filed. The defendant in his written statement took the plea that plaintiff is not the owner nor was placed in possession. Amaribai never placed him in possession of the suit accommodation. Amaribai was the sister of the plaintiff. If any...
Trustees of Indore Cancer Foundation Charitable Trust Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR730(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. By this petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the legality and validity of two orders one dated March 24, 2000 (annexure P-3) and the other dated November 27, 1995 (annexure P-4), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. In order to appreciate the issue involved and urged, a few facts which lie in a narrow compass need mention.2. The petitioner is a public charitable trust. The petitioner-trust has set up an institution called 'Indian Institute of Head and Neck Oncology' which according to the petitioner is rendering yeoman service to the society. Under the scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961, subject to certain conditions and on compliance of certain requirements of the Act, the income of the charitable trust is exempt from payment of income-tax under Section 12A read with Sections 11/12 ibid.3. The petitioner claiming the benefit under Section 12A ibid made an application on March 24, 1994/March 30, 1994, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »