Madhya Pradesh Court September 2000 Judgments
Prem Prakash Ambedkar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT176
ORDERR. S. Garg, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge his discharge from the Armed Forces on the ground that firstly he was wrongly retired, and secondly no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner before the discharge order was issued.2. The details of the facts at this juncture are not necessary barring few facts. Undisputedly the discharge order was issued from Secumderabad and was ultimately served upon the petitioner who was serving at Pathankot. According to the petitioner, his wife had made a statutory complaint/appeal against unceremonious discharge of the petitioner and the petitioner also made a statutory appeal to the authorities, but his appeal has yet not been considered; while the appeal sent by his wife was rejected, and the order dismissing the appeal filed by wife was conveyed to him at Jabalpur. The petitioner says and submits that during his service tenure on two occasions he was posted at Jaba...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand JaIn Vs. the Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP88; 2000(4)MPHT318; 2000(3)MPLJ522
Bhawani Singh, C. J. Plaintiff instituted suit against the defendants seeking relief on restraining them not to disconnect the electricity supply to his workshop 'Vinay Agro Industries Khurai (Sagar)' pursuant to additional bills served on the plaintiff by the defendants for an amount of Rs. 2,14,747.00. The defendants contested the suit. They preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 alleging that the plaintiff had valued the suit for Rs. 600.00 and paid Court-fee of Rs. 60.00 though his prayer was against recovery of Rs. 2,14,747.00 on which Court-fee had not been paid; therefore, the suit was liable to be rejected for arbitrary valuation. The plaintiff submitted that the suit has been filed for permanent injunction not to disconnect the electricity supply and Court-fee had been paid accordingly. Consequently, the plaint was not defective and the objection was liable to be dismissed. 2. The objection advanced by the defendants ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Pandey Vs. Regional Director, Esi Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ595MP
ORDERS.K.Pandey, J. 1. The petitioners, in these petitions, have challenged the Award dated August 4, 1995 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur, incase Reference No. CGIT/LC (R) (221)/1987, by which the Tribunal has held that the action of the Management, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, in terminating the services of the workmen was legal and justified.2. In connection with thetermination of employment of 28 workmen including the petitioners, following Industrial Dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication:'Whether the action of the management of Employees' State Insurance Corporation, M.P. Region, Indore in terminating 28 workmen (as shown in the Annexure) from service vide their office order 128 of 1985 issued under Sr. No. 18-A-22/12/2/85- Esthapna, dated April 1, 1985 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?'3. The petitioners were amongst the 28 terminated employees who had been a...
Tag this Judgment!New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rfeeka Sultan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT288
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Whether Insurance Company can challenge quantum of compensation under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the question for determination in this case. It arises in circumstances being narrated hereinafter.1. Mahmood Ul Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1400/- per month, apart from allowances and other facilities. While he was going towards crossing from Bus Stand on 18-2-1996, truck No. CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death. The matter was reported at Police Station -Hanumanganj and case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code filed in the Court after investigation. Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood Ul Hassan was conducted on 19-2-1986 at Hamidia Hospital. Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. was Insurer. The claimants preferred a claim for Rs. Four Lacs, since th...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rafeeka Sultan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ648; 2000(3)MPLJ561
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Whether insurance company can challenge quantum of compensation under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the question for determination in this case. It arises in circumstances being narrated hereinafter.Mahmood-Ul-Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1,400 per month, apart from allowances and other facilities. While he was going towards crossing from bus stand on 18.2.86, truck No. CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death. The matter was reported at Police Station, Hanumanganj and case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code filed in the court after investigation. Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood-Ul-Hassan was conducted on 19.2.1986 at Hamidia Hospital. Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was insurer. The claimants preferred a claim for Rs. 4,00,000, since they were de...
Tag this Judgment!Rampyari Bai and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1348; 2000(3)MPLJ18
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. We propose to dispose of Misc. Appeals (Rampyari Bai v. Union of India M.A. No. 444 of 1997; Chandrakala Bai v. Union of India M.A. No. 445 of 1997; Chindhi Bai v. Union of India M.A. No. 446 of 1997; Phulba Bai v. Union of India M.A. No. 447 of 1997, filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation, and Union of India v. Chindhi Bai M.A. No. 1046 of 1997; Union of India v. Phulba Bai M.A. No. 1047 of 1997; Union of India v. Chandrakala Bai M.A. No. 1048 of 1997; Union of India v. Rampyari Baiz M.A. No. 1088 of 1997 by Union of India against the awards of compensation) by this order since they arise out of the same accident, though the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has passed separate awards in separate claim cases.2. Accident took place on 16.2.1993 when dumper No. MWY 9117 driven rashly and negligently by driver Asha Ram, turned turtle resulting in the death of four persons, namely, Mahipat, Deva, Bihari Lal and Gulab. Defence taken by the Union of India is ...
Tag this Judgment!Shetanbai and ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1259
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This group of 14 appeals, namely, Misc. Appeal No. 515 of 1996 (Shetanbai v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 516 of 1996 (Kamlabai v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 517 of 1996 (Laxman Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 518 of 1996 (Vishnu Kunwar v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 519 of 1996 (Chaman Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 520 of 1996 (Kailash v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 521 of 1996 (Ishwar Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 522 of 1996 (Bane Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 523 of 1996 (Lilabai v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 524 of 1996 (Bahadur Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 525 of 1996 (Tarabai v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 526 of 1996 (Kalu Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 527 of 1996 (Amar Singh v. Ajay Kumar) and Misc. Appeal No. 528 of 1996 (Kamal Singh v. Ajay Kumar) and also the cross-objections filed by the insurance company in all the aforesaid misc. appeals except in Misc. Appeal No. 515 of 1996 (Shetanb...
Tag this Judgment!Triple a Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR109(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ filed by the petitioner (assesses) is whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (annexure P-4), is legal and proper A few facts to decide this short question need mention.2. The petitioner is a private limited company. It is engaged in the business of stitching garments. 3. The petitioner filed a return of their income for the year 1988-89 on May 15, 1989. The concerned Assessing Officer accepted the return as per the provisions of Section 143(1) as it then stood after making prima facie adjustment. In other words, the order that was passed by the Assessing Officer was not an order falling under Section 143(3) ibid as a regular assessment order but it was only in the nature of adjustment of the total income of the petitioner (assessee) as contemplated under Section 143(1)(b) ibid which enabled the Assessing Officer to accept the returned income. It was accordingly commu...
Tag this Judgment!Triple A. Trading and Investment Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(MP)440
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.The short question that falls for consideration in this writ filed by the petitioner (assessee) is whether the impugned notice issued under section 148 of Income Tax Act (Annexure P4) is legal and proper Few facts to decide this short question need mention.2. The petitioner is a private limited company. It is engaged in the business of stitching garments.3. The petitioner filed a return of their income for the year 1988-89 on 15-5-1989. The concerned assessing officer accepted the return as per provisions of section 143(1) as it then stood after making prima facie adjustment. In other words, the order that was passed by the assessing officer was not an order falling under section 143(3) ibid as a regular assessment order but it was only in the nature of adjustment of the total income of the petitioner (assessee) an contemplated under section 143(1)(b) ibid which enabled the assessing officer to accept the returned income. It was accordingly communicated to assessee o...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Singhal Vs. Smt. Ramkatori Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT321
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J. 1. This revision has been preferred by the defendant petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 20-12-1999 passed by IXth Addl. District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 14-A/96.2. Plaintiff/respondent has instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining dis-possession of her at the hands of her son; Anand Singhal, the defendant. She prayed that she be declared the owner of the disputed house bearing municipal No. 26/937 situated at Maharani Laxmi Bai Road and is in possession of the same anddefendant be restrained from interfering in her possession of the suit house. In the plaint it was pleaded that she had obtained the house on partition between the deceased Battolal, Anand Singhal and her other son Mahesh Chand @ Mahesh Babu. There was partition on 1-1-1975 which was acted upon between the parties. Mutation was done based thereon and parties also entered the possession on the basis of the partition dated 1-1-1975. After t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »