Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
UjjaIn Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT323; 2000(3)MPLJ41
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the Ujjain Development Authority, a Corporation owned and controlled by the Government of M.P., is directed against the State Government and the petitioner is aggrieved by the State Government notification dated 1-1-1990 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby the State Government has withdrawn from acquisition of certain lands as specified in the schedule of the said notification.2. At the out-set, I have to observe that this is a totally unwanted litigation between the Public Sector Undertaking and the State Government and is contrary to the directions given by the Apex Court on more than one occasion. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise [1992 Supplementary (2) SCC 432], the Apex Court reiterated:'This Court has on more than one occasion pointed out that Public Sector Undertakings of Central Government an...
Habib Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT464; 2000(3)MPLJ286
ORDERShambhoo Singh, J.1. This Order shall govern the disposal of MCRC No. 2135/90 arising out of Cr. Case No. 2165/86, MCRC No. 2136/90 arising out of Cr. Case No. 2167/86 and MCRC No. 2137/90 rising out of Cr. Case. No. 2166/86 pending in the Court of C.J.M. Ratlam as common question of law and facts are involved.2. The prosecution case is that Habib, the supervisor of Kirloskar Oil Engine Proprietory Ltd., Pune, found that the respondents in all the three cases, were having engine parts bearing false trade mark of this company in their possession and were selling the same representing that these parts were manufactured by the Company and thereby they were inducing the purchasers to purchase them. He himself purchased some parts from the respondents. Expert examined them and opined that the parts purchased and seized from the possession of the respondents were spurious and were not manufactured or supplied by the company, they bore false trade mark of the company. He lodged written c...
Dr. Mrunalini Devi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(MP)339
ORDERN.K. Jain, JThis is a petition by an assessee filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ for quashing 4 notices dated 23-3-1987, (Annexures-I, J, K & Q, issued by the Asstt. CWT, Indore (Respondent No. 1) under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. It may be noted at the outset that the petitioner-assessee has in response to the said notices filed returns for the said reassessment undertaken by respondent No. 1, under section 17(l)(a) of the Act. During those reassessment proceedings an application was filed by the petitioner seeking disclosure of the reasons for which the reassessment was being undertaken by the assessing authority. In reply to the said application the assessing authority issued a memo dated 2nd March, 1989 (Annexure-B) stating that the reason being the assessment order for the year 1982-83 according to which it had come to notice that certain wealth with the assessee ha...
Narayandas and Sons Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1046MP
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Challenge in this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to an appellate order dated January 19, 2000 (Annexure P7) passed by Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal under Section 71 of Employees' Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which in turn affirms the order dated April 9, 1999, passed under Section 7A ibid.2. The main factual question that came up for consideration before the two authorities was the date on which the petitioner began their production. It was the case of petitioner that they started production from July 1994 whereas, the case of respondent was that it was from April 1, 1993. Both the authorities below did not accept the case of petitioner and held that the actual date on which the petitioner started production was April 1, 1993, for coming to this conclusion, the authorities below relied on the report dated May 20, 1993 of factory supervisor which was forwarded to Regional Director, clearly stati...
Deelip Chhotelal Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT101; 2000(2)MPLJ616
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner has taken the exception for construction of ring-road with a flag of public interest in his hand giving alarm to the State and the officers of the State who had to be within limits of Constitution. The petition has been framed in such a way. Shri N.K. Maheshwari submitted that said ring-road has been directed to be constructed by one Minister named B.R. Yadav. It is the strong objection of the petitioner that he cannot be treated to be the Government. Therefore, his decision to construct the said ring-road happens to be not only arbitrary, unfair, capricious but detrimental to the public interest.3. With these submissions the petitioner is coming forth for the purpose of praying this Court that this Court should take some actions for the purpose of impugning said action of the State in constructing the said ring-road. Shri Maheshwari pointed out that while constructing such ring-road in such a capricious way, poor agriculturists have been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›