Madhya Pradesh Court December 2003 Judgments
Narayan Prasad Tamrakar Vs. M.P. State Co-operative Land Development B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT114
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, C.J.1. In both the appeals, the short but interesting question that arises for consideration is whether an employee, who has been terminated from service, can raise a dispute beyond the period of 30 days by filing an application for condonation of delay under the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act before the Registrar under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The learned Single Judge was of the view that there is no power for Registrar of Co-operative Societies to condone any delay, wherein employee raises a dispute under Section 55 of the Act since the section itself provides for the period of limitation. Section 55 of the Act reads as under:-- '55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in Societies.-- (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Akeel Ahmad Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT531
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, C.J.1. This L.P.A. is taken up for final disposal with the consent of parties.2. The person who sought for compassionate appointment is, the son of the deceased/employee (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') who had worked in the appellant/bank.3. The deceased was initially appointed on the post of Messenger. Thereafter, he was promoted to the clerical cadre and subsequently he reached to the post of Deputy Head Cashier.4. Deceased died as a result of cancer on 27-4-2000 while he was working in the post of Deputy Head Cashier.5. After the death of the deceased, the respondent, who is the only son of the deceased, sought for compassionate appointment in accordance with the scheme. It is common ground that the respondent is a graduate.6. By a letter dated 27-12-2000 (Annexure P-7), the Bank declined request for compassionate appointment.7. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application, the respondentmoved the learned Single Judge.8. The learned Single Judge in a ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(MP)581
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. On being directed under Section 256(2) of the IT Act (for short, 'the Act'), by order dt. 24th April, 1996, passed in MCC No. 489 of 1993, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in giving another opinion on the same set of facts after recalling its own order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2)?'2. The respondent-assessee in response to notice under Section 139(2) of the Act, filed return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 after a delay of 32 months declaring a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs from business. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee, however, did not produce its books of accounts inspite of repeated notices as a result of which the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the AAC and thereafter before the Tribunal. At both the stages, the matter was set as...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam and ors. Vs. Sushil and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ239
S.K. Kulshrestha and A.K. Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard on M(C)P No. 531 of 2003. The appeal is time-barred by 952 days for which the appellants have filed the above application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to seek condonation. Learned counsel for the appellants has refereed to Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and to the decisions in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582 and State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, in support of the submission that sufficient cause must be construed liberally so as to advance justice and not to thwart it. She has further referred to a decision in Ravi Namadev Kavale v. Kittaswami, 1998 ACJ 1361 (Karnataka), of the Karnataka High Court in support of her contention that ignorance of provision and illiteracy are also the causes for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a decision in Prakash v. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C, 2000 ACJ 954 (...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Vs. Sushil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC451
ORDER1. Heard on M (C) PNo. 531 of 2003. The appeal is time barred by 952 days for which the appellants have filed the above application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to seek condonation. Learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and to the decisions in Vedabai @ Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. V : 2001(132)ELT15(SC) and The State of West Bengals v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality : [1972]2SCR874a , in support of the submission that sufficient cause must be construed liberally to as to advance justice and not to thwart it. She has further referred to a decision on 1998 ACJ 1311 of the Karnataka High Court in support of her contention that ignorance of provision and illiteracy are also the causes for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to a decision to a decision in Prakash and Anr. v. Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. and Ors. I...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ralson Industries Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(MP)680; [2005]276ITR368(MP)
Dipak Misra, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'), by the Revenue. The assessee-company filed its return on December 31, 1992, declaring its income to Rs. 26,66,355 for the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on March 10, 1995, under Section 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 35,40,414. The Commissioner of Income-tax considered the above assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue inasmuch as the Assessing Officer did not exclude certain accounts, transport receipts amounting to a sum of Rs. 27,62,982 and interest amounting to Rs. 1,41,878 as the income from the assessee's total income for the purpose of allowing deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Act. The said authority invoked the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order with the directions to the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education Vs. Ku. Shashi Tomer and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT498; 2004(1)MPLJ455
ORDERS. Samvatsar, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the respondents against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2003 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court on 23-9-2003 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 27 and directed the appellant, Board, to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before cancelling their results.2. The brief facts giving rise to the petition arc that respondent Nos. 1 to 27 are regular students from D. A. V. Higher Secondary School, Bhind and Indira Gandhi Memorial High School, Bhind. All these petitioners appeared in the examination of higher secondary from examination centre No. 31005. Nearly 400 students appeared in the examination from the aforesaid centre. Out of these students the result of 119 students were cancelled on the ground that their answers were found identically the same. Even the mistakes appeared in the answer papers were also the same in all the papers answered ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramavtar Verma Vs. Smt. Chintamani Verma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP137; II(2004)DMC398; 2004(2)MPHT132; 2004(2)MPLJ87
ORDERP.C. Agrawal, J.1. He is heard on the maintainability of the revision.2. By the impugned order Second Additional District Judge, Mhow, in Civil Suit No. 17/2002 (Smt. Chintamani v. Ramavtar Verma) has allowed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short), for maintenance pendente lite and expenses for proceedings. Smt. Chintamani (N.A. No. 1) had applied lor restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. The question to be decided is whether a revision against such order is maintainable in view of amended proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) as inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, which came into force on 1-7-2002, which reads as follows :--'Provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sandhya and ors. Vs. Navi Mohammad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC743
R.B. Dixit, J.1. The learned First Additional Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 136 of 1998 by imugned award dated 17.9.1998, has awarded Rs. 4,16,976, as compensation for the death of the deceased Kamta Prasad, who was L.I.C. agent and was aged 28 years at the time of accident.2. The only contention of the learned Counsel of the appellants is that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in calculating the amount of expenses incurred by the deceased in his capacity as L.I.C. agent. It is urged that there is no evidence regarding any of his expenses to the extent of Rs. 6,600 and the amount of incentive as Rs. 12,000 of policy-holders. However, the learned Counsel of the respondent No. 3, on the other hand has contended that the expense of Rs. 100 per day was admitted by the wife of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has calculated this expense only for 200 days in a year. In our opinion, since there is no evidence in rebuttal insofar as expense of Rs. 100 per day by the de...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prasad Vs. Sugriv Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT285; 2004(3)MPLJ67
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13-3-2003 of the Civil Judge Class-2, Nagod, Distt. Satna, in Civil Suit No. 25-A/95 by which the Court has rejected the application of the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The petitioner is claiming half share in Khasra Nos. 139,140 and 147 total area 54 Beegha and 18 Vishwa of Village Hardokhar. Bhagwat Prasad was the Bhumiswami of these lands. Out of total land, 33 beegha and 6 vishwa of land, was got recorded in the name of his nephew Sugriv Prasad in the year 1956. He executed a Will in respect of the remaining lands held by him in favour of plaintiff Kampta Prasad, who is nephew of Sugriv Prasad. Sugriv Prasad is claiming his exclusive possession over all the lands. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction.3. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner prayed for temporary injunction. The matter travelled to the High Court in Civil Revision...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »