Madhya Pradesh Court July 2002 Judgments
State Bank of India and anr. Vs. Binod Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC338
ORDER1. The appellant-creditors of liquidated company respondent No. 1 has directed this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, against the order of the Company Judge dated 31.8.2001 passed in Company Petition No. 12/92, whereby dismissing the application LA. 1989/2001 filed by the petitioner and directed the Official Liquidator to disburse the amount as directed in the Court order dated 30.3.2001 and as calculated by him to the workers within a period of one month from the date of order.2. The only point urged before us on behalf of the appellant, that by the orders of the company Judge dated 30.3.2001 passed in Co. P. 12/92 it was directed that the workers should be paid atleast 15% of the dues to each of the workers out of the funds of company lying with the petitioner-Banks. After passing of the said order and on calculating 15% of the funds, available with the Banks of a liquidated company, the amount of ad hoc payment to the workers comes to Rs. 3,18,47,687/-. On behalf o...
Tag this Judgment!Jhamkubai Vs. Jaggannath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC194
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Applicant has filed this revision against the dismissal of her application, Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for maintenance and also for grant of legal expenses, vide order dated 23.3.2001.2. In a proceedings Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that a similar application, filed earlier, was rejected and that the repeat application has been filed at the stage of evidence.3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that during the proceedings there was a compromise between the parties and the non-applicant had started keeping the applicant in his house, but subsequently he again deserted her.4. In reply, the submission of the learned Counsel for the non-applicant is that, the Magistrate has rejected the application Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of Maintenance. Therefore, from the aforesaid submissions it is clear that the applicant is not getting any maintenance either in ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Pal Singh Pundhir Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1104]; 2002(4)MPHT213
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J. 1. The petitioner/appellant has challenged before the learned Single Judge his second order of suspension. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has observed that considering the ratio of the decision in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Rajiv Rajan, reported in [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 483] the order passed by the Board, suspending the petitioner again appears to be proper. There is no reason to interfere with the order of suspension passed by the Board. 2. The learned Counsel of appellant relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and Anr. v. Omprakash Gupta and Anr., reported in 2001(2) MPLJ 690, contended that the order of second suspension amounts to review. However, on perusal of the second order of suspension (Annexure P-1) it appears to us that the petitioner was first suspended on account of his arrest in a criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 460 and 472, IPC registered at Police Station,...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. V.K. Girdonia and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR382]; 2002(4)MPHT418; 2003(1)MPLJ387
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Through this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, (CAT), dated February 15, 2002, passed in O.A. No. 236/1997, whereby the order of dismissal of the respondent No. 1 ('respondent' hereafter) dated June 25, 1996, is quashed and the petitioners have been directed to disburse 50% of wages to respondent from May 31, 1984, till the date of his reinstatement in service, apart from granting him notional seniority in the grade with reference to his immediate senior and other benefits like promotion etc.2. Shortly stated, the respondent was Extra Departmental Branch Post Master ('EDBPM'). The departmental enquiry was initiated against him, which resulted in his termination by order dated 25-6-1996. The grievance of the respondent has been that he was not paid subsistence allowance during put-off duty period, before his services were terminate...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indore Plastics P. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR163(MP)
1. Heard Mr. R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant-department, and Mr. Sanjay Patwa, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood before the amendment of 1999, praying for calling reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, for resolution of the question, as extracted in para. 4 of the application, which is said to be a question of law.3. The dispute is regarding payments made to the assessee in instalments, by one Shri R.C. Khosla, in the relevant assessment year, amounting to Rs. 2,31,390. Apparently, Shri Khosla was the promoter and managing director of the respondent-company. According to the assessing authority as also the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the said payment was in contravention of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act and the assessee was, therefore, liable to pay penalty. The penalty so imposed was, however, vacated in second appeal b...
Tag this Judgment!Jaggu Bai and ors. Vs. Kissu Patel and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ403
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in M.V.C. No. 113 of 2000 dated 2.1.2001. The claim for compensation has been dismissed by Tribunal on the ground that claimants failed to prove that minibus No. MP 20-E 9499 was involved in this accident. For coming to this conclusion, Tribunal has found that in F.I.R., Exh. P-1, the version is entirely different, deceased coming through truck and being hit on the roadside, etc.2. Briefly, it may be stated that Santoo Gontia was going to attend the marriage of Rakesh Gontia on 28.4.1999. He was travelling by minibus No. MP 20-E 9499, owned by Vindravan Prasad Dixit and driven by Kissu Patel. Allegation is that this minibus was being driven rashly and negligently. When it had reached between Paharewar Naka and Sihora at 2 a.m., it dashed against a jeep standing there, as a result of which Santoo Gontia fell on the ground along with Bihari and Jagdish. All of them sustained injuries,...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Indore Plastics (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN729(MP)
ORDERHeard Mr. R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant-department and Mr. Sanjay Patwa, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as it stood before the amendment of 1999, praying for calling reference from the Tribunal, Indore Bench, for resolution of the question, as extracted in para 4 of the application, which is said to be a question of law.3. The dispute is regarding the payments made to the assessee in instalments, by one Shri R.C. Khosla, in the relevant assessment year, amounting to Rs. 2,31,390. Apparently, Shri Khosla was the promoter and managing director of the respondent-company. According to the assessing authority as also the Commissioner (Appeals), the said payment was in contravention of section 269SS of the Act and the assessee was, therefore, liable to pay penalty. The penalty so imposed was, however, vacated in second appeal by the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Mineral Supply Co. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT119; 2002(4)MPLJ60
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. As common questions of law being involved in both these appeals, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in brief and necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that the appellant is a registered partnership firm. It applied for mining lease for lime stone over an area of 41.88 hectares and 21.252 hectares in Village Degrahat, Taluk Rampur Baghelan, District Satna. As per communication No. 2713/9/12/7, dated 29-9-92 of the State Government, appellant was required to file certain documents in both the applications within the stipulated period of sixty days.3 As the documents were not filed, appellant's application suffered deemed refusal under Rule 24 (3) of the Mining Concession Rules.Appellant filed a revision before the Central Government challenging theorder of deemed refusal. The Central Government by its order No. 25/93,dated 11-2-93 set aside the deemed refusal order and directed the StateGovernment to dispose ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Vs. Savita
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3087
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal of an application, filed by this petitioner under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, in Criminal Case No. 1218/2000, pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Jabalpur, this petitioner has challenged not only the aforesaid order dated 19-2-2001, but also seeks quashment of aforesaid criminal case, after being unsuccessful in his Crl. Rev. No. 307/2001, which stood disposed of by IInd A.S.J. Jabalpur, on 7-5-2002.2. As per this petitioner, on a report dated 20-9-1998, lodged by respondent against this petitioner, Crime No. 162/98, was registered for offences punishable under Section 498A/494/506 of the IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in respect of which the police submitted expungement report, bearing No. 13/6-12-98. Thereafter, the respondent, the wife of this petitioner filed a private complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C. Jabalpur, which is registere...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaykumar Rajendrakumar and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2004]269ITR447(MP)
1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as it stood before the amendment of 1999, the applicant-Department seeks direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the question, as stated in paragraph 8 of the application for answer by this court.2. From the averments made in the application, it appears that a licence under the M. P. Excise Act, was granted in an, individual name. However, the licensee constituted a registered firm with some more persons and carried on business on the basis of the said licence. Later on, he applied for registration of the firm and continuation thereof. The assessing authority declined the prayer. However, in appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), reversed the order of the assessing authority. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was affirmed in second appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also rejected the applicant's prayer made under Section 25...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »