Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Bhagwandas Shobhalal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR630(MP)
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. On a prima facie finding that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice dated May 10, 2000, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the petitioner to file clarification supported with the details. It is this order of the Commissioner which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ petition, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the Commissioner of Income-tax gave notice to the petitioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. In response thereto, the petitioner appeared before the Commissioner and prayed for time to file the reply. The petitioner ultimately filed the reply on May 29, 2000, raising various pleas on facts and law. Thereafter, the petitioner has c...
Bhagwandas Shobhalal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(MP)224
ORDERC. K. Prasad, J .On a prima facie finding that the order of the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, Commissioner issued notice, dated 10-5-2000, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, calling upon the petitioner to file clarification supported with the details: lt is this order of the Commissioner which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition, filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ petition, it is .in expediant to give in details the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the Commissioner gave notice to the petitioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. In response thereto, petitioner appeared before the Commissioner and prayed for time to file the reply. Petitioner ultimately filed the reply on 29-5-2000 raising various pleas on facts and law. Thereafter, the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition on 31-5-2000.3. I have...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidya Devi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1580
Arun Mishra, J.1. Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has come up in the present appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 27.4.2000 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sarguja (Ambikapur), awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,10,000 to the claimants for the death of Ramesh Kumar Agrawal (21).2. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal met with an accident on 7.3.1998 while he was driving motor cycle No. MP 27-D 1058 owned by respondent No. 3 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal. Vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Claimants contended that accident occurred due to mechanical failure. Owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal.3. Appellant insurance company denied the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased himself was responsible for the alleged accident, therefore, it cannot be made liable for the payment of any compensation. Insurance company further took a plea that the driver of the vehicle was not having vaiid driving licence to drive ...
Shobha Soya Oil Products Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(MP)222
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.On a prima facie finding that the order of the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue , Commissioner issued notice dated 10-5-2000, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, calling upon the petitioner to file clarification supported with the details. It is this order of the Commissioner which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ petition, it is inexpedient to give in details the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the Commissioner gave notice to the petitioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. In response thereto, petitioner appeared before the Commissioner and prayed for time to file the reply. Petitioner ultimately filed the reply on 29-5-2000, raising various pleas on facts and law. Thereafter, the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition on 31-5-2000.3. I have he...
Mukhtyarbi Vs. Prithvipal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1705
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Notice was issued to the insurance company which had deposited amount in the Claims Tribunal but none appeared. The question is totally dependent on interpreting the legal aspect of the matter and, therefore, this court is examining the order which is being assailed by this revision petition.2. An application was submitted by the petitioner before M.A.C.T., Indore, which decided the said application by which the prayer was made by the petitioner for releasing the amount of award which has been invested by making reference to the observations made by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), by passing an order on 19.8.1999. The learned Judge pointed out the guideline Nos. (i) and (iii) which can be quoted as hereunder:(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of ...
Kedia Distilleries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chhattisgarh Chemical Mill Mazdoo ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR547]; (2000)IILLJ1177MP
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed byKedia Distilleries Limited and Kedia CastleDelleon Industries Limited (hereinafterreferred to as the 'employer'). Their prayer inthese writ petitions filed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India is to quash the awarddated October 16, 1999, each of the caseswhereby while granting reinstatement, theIndustrial Court had directed for payment of66% of back wages to the employees.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the State Government made a reference under Section 51 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the Industrial Court, the following questions for its answers: (A) Is it desirable to revise the pay and allowances If so, what should be the Scheme for dearness allowance and other allowances and what order should be given in this respect to employer (B) Is it desirable to give 15 days casual leave, 10 days holidays and ...
Subodh Mittal Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Allahabad Bank a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT215
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner has called in question the defensibility of the order dt. 23-9-99 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, in Misc. Appeal No. 40/99 whereby he has affirmed the order dt. 17-9-99 passed in C.S. No. 124-A/98 by the learned 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur whereby the Court of first instance returned the plaint to present the same in appropriate Court.2. The facts as have been unfurled are that the petitioner as plaintiff initiated a civil litigation being C.S. No. 124-A/98 for setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him and for issuance of a direction for re-instatement. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was posted at New Delhi when the order of dismissal was passed. The Assistant General Manager, Calcutta was the disciplinary authority who passed the order of dismissal. The appellate authority was the General Manager, Calc...
Kedia Distilleries Limited Vs. Board for Industrial and Financial Reco ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas581(MP)
N.K. Jain J. 1. The petitioner, a public limited company, by this petition seeks extension of the order dated January 25, 1999, passed by the BIFR-- respondent No. 1--under Section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'the SICA'), for a further period of one year or until the proceedings initiated by the petitioner-company before the BIFR by application dated June 22, 1998, are concluded.2. The petitioner-company on June 22, 1998, made a reference to the BIFR under Section 15 of the SICA. The BIFR by its order dated August 6, 1998, declared the petitioner-company, a sick industrial company and directed for taking further measures under the provisions of the SICA for its reconstruction. Respondent No. 2 went in appeal against the said order before the AAIFR. The appellate authority vide its orders dated September 26, 1999/JuIy 1, 1999, and set aside the aforesaid order of the BIFR. Against this order of the AAIFR, the petitioner has filed a w...
Mohd. Shafique Pahalwan and Two ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT238
ORDERBhawani Singh, C. J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 20, 1997, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (IV), Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 62/88. The appellant No. 1 - Mohammed Shafique Pahalwan has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three month. He has also been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five year and fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellants No. 2 and 3, namely, Hafiz Pahalwan and Irphan, have been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three month each. The appel...
Kalyan Das and ors. Vs. Narayan Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT374
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this civil revision challenge is to the order dated 28-9-1999 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, in C.S. No. 5-A/95.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is setforth in the plaint that in the year 1991 the plaintiffs had purchased certain land described in Schedule A from the defendant No. 1. Various sale-deeds were executed by the defendant No. 1. After purchase of the suit land the plaintiffs are in possession and in peaceful enjoyment of the same. It is averred that after sale of the said property to the plaintiffs the defendant No. 1 again sold the said property to other defendants. The plaintiffs have further pleaded as the defendant No. 1 had sold the some of the properties to the other defendants in a malafide manner a cloud has been cast in respect of the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. With the aforesaid base the plaintiffs prayed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »