Madhya Pradesh Court August 2002 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.
Radhika Prasad Khare Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT350; 2003(1)MPLJ622
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27-3-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6488/2001, appellant has filed this letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.2. Brief resume of the facts required to be stated for disposal of the appeal is that the appellant was initially appointed in the service of respondent No. 2 as a daily rated employed to drive the vehicle and his service was regularised on the post of driver with effect from 1-1-76. In the year 1979 appellant was sent by the respondent No. 2 for training in fire fighting and on completion of his training, he was promoted as fire Superintendent in the year 1983. He was in the pay-scale of 1200-1800. The administrator of respondent No. 2 on 5-1-88 resolved that the appellant be granted pay-scale of Rs. 1540-2740 subject to the sanction by the State Government. This resolution was forwarded to the State Government for approval but no approval was received.3. Appellant reque...
Sitaram Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT244; 2003(3)MPLJ82
ORDERUma Nath Singh , J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The main submission of Mr. Choubey is that though the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held the non-applicant No. 2 guilty of offence under Section 302, IPC, he referred the matter to the Juvenile Board, the competent authority under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, for passing an order on the sentence. Mr. Choubey further submits that before holding that the non-applicant No. 2 was a juvenile, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have conducted necessary enquiry by giving proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in that regard.3. On the other hand, Shri Datt, appearing for the non-applicant No. 2 submits that under the provisions of Sections 14 and 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the applicant would get an opportunity to lead evidence to the contrary before the Juvenile Justice Board, being the competent authority.4. On a due consideration of rival submissions, I am of the opinion th...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Devshree Cinema
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(MP)447; [2002]258ITR425(MP)
Mr. R.L. Jain, learned counsel for applicant-Revenue.1. Heard.2. This reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, at the instance of the Revenue, for resolution of the following question said to be a question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the cinema theatre was entitled to exemption from wealth-tax for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and accordingly quashing the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under Section 26(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'3. The matter pertains to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and the core question is whether a cinema theatre is exempted from wealth-tax. Under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, various properties were enumerated as the one exempted from wealth-tax. There was, however, no mention of cinema theatre. Now by the Finance Act of 1988, a ...
Nimar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT142; 2003(1)MPLJ253
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Undaunted by the unsuccess before the Single Bench in Writ Petition No. 6879/2000 the appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 18-3-2002.2. The brief resume of facts required to be stated for the disposal of this appeal is that looking to the needs of general public, Municipal Corporation, Khandwa decided to construct a bus stand so as to enable the general public to get means of conveyance to a particular place. For this purpose, earlier the State Government issued a notification which was subject-matter of challenge before the High Court but as the proceedings of acquisition could not be completed within the statutory period, the proceedings initiated in furtherance with the notification dated 2-6-95 were dropped.3. Again on 12-9-2000 the Municipal Corporation, Khandwa passed a resolution for the construction of bus stand. Thereafter, on 20-9-2000 the Collector wrote to the Commissioner tor involving an urg...
Ladharam S/O Bachulal Sindhi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(86)ECC556; 2003(1)MPLJ402
S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Ladharam has been convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The prosecution case is that on 17.7.1997, S.K. Shrivastava (P..W. 3), Sub-Inspector of Police of Seoni Police Station received information that accused Ladharam is selling brown sugar in his Pan shop. He recorded this information and sent a copy of the same to the S.D.O. police as per Ex. P-11. He proceeded to the shop of the accused with his staff. Accused Ladharam was sitting in his Pan shop known as 'Pappu Pan centre'. He apprised him of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate. The accused gave his consent to be searched by him in the presence of a gazetted officer. That was recorded in Ex. ...
Devkinandan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1502; 2002(4)MPHT135; 2003(1)MPLJ329
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant Devkinandan has been convicted under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for the first two offences and to three years for the third offence.2. It is not in dispute that deceased Manju was married to appellant Devkinandan on 11-6-1985 and she committed suicide on 4-9-1987 by consuming poison in her matrimonial home at Bina, Harnarain (P.W. 1) is her father, Kasturibai (P.W. 6) is her mother and Kamlesh (P.W. 5) is her brother. They live at a distance of 39 Kms. from Bina in Village Shahrai.3. The prosecution case is that appellant Devkinandan was demanding a motor-cycle and a double bed as dowry. He was asking his wife to bring these things from her father. He was beating her. He was not providing her proper food or clothes. He was harassing and causing mental torture to her. He wrote several letters Exs. P-26 to P-34. She used to complain to her parents and brother about the cruel treatment by her husb...
Ten Singh Vs. Gas Authority of India Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT231
ORDERRajendra Menon, J. 1. The petitioner by this petition has challenged the order dated 24-6-1993 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 19-2-1996 (Annexure P-11) by which his services have been terminated.2. The facts in brief which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Trainee. Subsequently after completion of the training, he was appointed as the Technical Grade-Ill vide Annexure P-2 dated 29-1-1992. The said appointment was on probation and accordingly an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The agreement has been brought on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2 which indicates that initially the petitioner was appointed as a trainee and on successful completion of the training, he was appointed in the regular pay scale for a period of one year. Therefore, his appointment vide Annexure P-2 dated 29-1-1992 was on probation for a period of one year. It was also contained in the agreement that if any declaration is made by the pet...
Bhagwandas and ors. Vs. Collector of Stamps and District Registrar and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT136
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner by this petition has challenged the order An-nexure P-1, dated 16-10-95 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Distt. Shivpuri, M.P. and the recovery order Annexure P-2 issued in pursuance thereof.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted a relinquish-ment deed Annexure P-3 for registration before the Competent Authority on 15-5-95 but the same was not registered and returned back to the petitioner on 14-11-95. Annexure P-3 is the copy of the said document wherein seal have been affixed of its presentation on 15-5-95 and it is written in the same that it returned to the petitioner on 14-11-95, refused to register and registration Rule 35-R is also mentioned. Signature of the petitioner and seal and signature of the registering authority is also affixed.3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was unwilling to get the document registered and the same was returned to him. However, he received a notice from the office of Collector St...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhar Ispat (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(MP)491
1. This reference is made by the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, at the instance of the Revenue for resolution of the following question, said to be the question of law :'Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the IT Act following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Steller Investments Ltd.. stating that provisions of Section 68 is not applicable in respect of share application money ?' 2. The judgments of the CIT(A) and that of the Tribunal were obviously based on a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. wherein it was held that in no circumstance the share application money can be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. However, this Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court has been overruled by the Full Bench of the same High Court in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. : [1994]205ITR98(Delhi) . In the subsequent decision it is clearly held that Section 68 o...
Sandhya Vs. Dinesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC117
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. The applicants have filed this civil revision against rejection of their application Under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'), in a suit for declaration filed before the First Additional District Judge, Ujjain seeking a .declaration that the marriage be declared dissolved,as the dissolution has already been taken place as per the recognised custom prevailing in the caste of the plaintiffs and defendants. The Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the suit is main-tamable and before granting such a decree for declaration it is necessary to hold an inquiry about the prevailing custom and then only customary divorce can be recognised by the Court and a declaratory decree can be granted.2. The Trial Court placing reliance on a decision in the case of P. Mariammal v. Padmanabhan, reported in AIR 2001 Madras, has rejected the aforesaid application of the applicants holding therein that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »