Madhya Pradesh Court March 2003 Judgments
Suryakant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(MP)105
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in this writ and hence it deserves dismissal in limine.2. What is challenged in this writ by the petitioner is a notice, dt. 30th Jan., 2003 (Annexure P/12), issued by the AO under Section 142 of the IT Act r/w Sections 158BC(b) and 158BD ibid. It is not in dispute that pursuant to impugned notice issued, the petitioner has filed reply to the notice on 3rd March, 2003, (Annexure P/13). It is then the petitioner has come to this Court and has sought quashing of such notice.I do not wish to burden my order with entire facts which are sought to made subject-matter of petition as it will simply add to confusion without adding anything useful in its disposal. That apart, it is really not necessary to so narrate the facts in view of the short controversy raised by the petitioner in assailing the impugned notice. Suffice it to say the entire facts an...
Tag this Judgment!Suryakant Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN659(MP)
ORDERHaving heard the L/c for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in this writ and hence it deserves dismissal in limine.2. What is challenged in this writ by the petitioner is a notice dated 30-1-2003 (Annexure P/12) issued by the assessing officer under section 142 of the Income Tax Act read with section 158BC(b) and 158BD ibid. It is not in dispute that pursuant to impugned notice issued, the petitioner has filed reply to the notice on 3-3-2003 (Annexure P/13). It is then the petitioner has come to this court and has sought quashing of such notice.I do not wish to burden my order with entire facts which are sought to make subject matter of petition as it will simply add to confusion without adding any thing useful in its disposal. That apart, it is really not necessary to so narrate the facts in view of the short controversy raised by the petitioner in assailing the impugned notice. Suffice it to say the entire facts and the chequered...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Badsar Vs. Jagganath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT230; 2004(1)MPLJ197
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 13-3-2001 passed by the Court below allowing the application of the defendant filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fee. The suit for eviction has been filed by the applicant under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, against the respondent.2. Under Section 7(xi) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, if a suit is filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Court-fee is required to be paid according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madak Chand Jain v. Ms. Fatima Bi, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 46 = 1999 (2) JLJ 254, hasheld that in an eviction suit filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground of encroachment, i.e., 12 (1) (o) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT367; 2003(4)MPLJ193
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioners have filed present petition challenging the order passed by Industrial Court (Annexure P-7), in Case No. 673/MPIR/99, decided on 25-2-2002. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal as barred by time.2. From the perusal of record it appears that there was delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the Industrial Court. Delay as explained in the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, was that the award was passed on 5-7-99, petitioners applied for certified copy of the award on 12-8-99, which was received on the same date, and thereafter, the matter was sent to the Collector for appointment of Officer-in-Charge. The Officer-in-Charge, who was appointed by the Collector was engaged in election duty. Consequently, he could not file appeal upto 30th October, 1999. On these grounds the delay was sought to be condoned.3. The Industrial Court rejected the application on the ground that there is no explanation on the par...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Phoolmati Bai and ors. Vs. Mohd. Azad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ951; 2003(3)MPHT352
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. This appeal, by the claimants, is directed against the interim award dated 2-12-2002 passed in Claim Case No. 63/2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni, whereby only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded on the ground that by Repealing and Amending Act, 2001, the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 has been repealed and, therefore, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to amendment of 1994 are applicable.2. The claimants are wife and parents of the deceased Dayaram. On the intervening night of 4-5-2002 and 5-5-2002 Dayaram was run over by a Truck while he was sleeping by the side of road. He died on the spot. The said truck was being driven by the driver respondent No. 1. The truck is owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3.3. The appellants filed a claim petition for compensation alongwith an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhajirao Vs. Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP74; 2003(3)MPLJ76
R.B. Dixit, J. 1. Judgment in this appeal shall also govern disposal of First Appeal No. 11 of 2000, (Prahlad Das Agarwal v. Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha and another).2. Appellant, Sambhajirao, who is owner of the suit house situated at Plot No. 19 in Mahalla Angre-Ka-Bada, Lashkar, Gwalior, had entered into an agreement on 1-4-1986 to sell the house to respondent No. 1, Vimlesh Kumari, for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/- out of which Rs. 24,000/- were paid as advance. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 1, Vimlesh Kumari, had also filed a Civil Suit No. 228-A/86 in the Court of III Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, in respect of the same property, however, it was withdrawn vide order dated 6-5-1987.3. Respondent No. 2, Prahladdas had applied to be impleaded as a party in this case on the ground that the appellant had also entered into subsequent agreement dated 9-9-1986 to sell the same house to him for which he filed a separate civil suit for specific performance of the contract ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kuwar SaraThe and ors. Vs. Hari Singh Rajput
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC37; 2004ACJ1036; 2004(2)MPLJ8
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gadarwara in Claim Case No. 11 of 1992; decided on 13.2.1997.2. Shortly stated, accident took place on 3.12.1991 when minibus No. CIK 8509 owned and driven by Dilip Singh Rajput (dead through legal heir Hari Singh Rajput) met with accident at Omar Bridge, Nandner, Gadarwara, by falling into river, resulting in death of 8 persons and injuries to others. Puranlal Sarathe is one of the persons who died in this accident. He was barber at Badeshwar, Kareli (Gadarwara), earning Rs. 1,000 per month. Allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. Total compensation of Rs. 8,45,000 is claimed.3. Respondent alleges that he is not the sole heir of Dilip Singh Rajput. He denies the accident and disputes income of the deceased. He also alleges that the deceased was 75 years old, therefore, claim is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, claim has been dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Bilniya Bai and ors. Vs. Motilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ675; 2004(2)MPLJ32
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mudwara (Katni), dated 20.3.1997, in Claim Case No. 95 of 1992.2. On 27.9.1992 Munnilal (deceased) was going for duty at Kymore (Katni) by his cycle. When he reached at Asbestos turning, Motilal (driver) of bus No. MKA 3120 driven rashly and negligently hit the cycle resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased, who was admitted in Government Hospital, Katni. However, he died on 30.9.1992. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 45 years old and was working in Asbestos Company Ltd. He was the sole earning member or the family.3. The respondents submit that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and the insurance company alleges that the driver did not possess valid driving licence, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation.4. The Claims Tribunal, after recording of evidence, finds that the accident took place as alleged, the deceased was 45 years old....
Tag this Judgment!YasmIn and anr. Vs. Rashid Beg and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ606
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Through this appeal, award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa (East Nimar) arising out of Claim Case No. 16 of 1996 dated 12.12.1997 is challenged by the wife and daughter of the deceased Jhabbu Khan. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are parents of deceased. They had filed Claim Case No. 7 of 1996, disposed of by common award. However, they have not challenged the same through separate appeal.2. Shortly stated, Jhabbu Khan (the deceased) was driver in truck bearing registration No. MBI 9306. This truck was owned by Sheikh Jamil and Sheikh Khalil, driven by Rashid Beg, second driver of the truck with the deceased. Allegation is that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by Rashid Beg. It struck against parapet wall and a tree. The deceased, who was sitting in the cabin of the truck, was thrown out and died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Contention of the respondents/non-claimants is that the deceased was not a driver in the truc...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh @ Rajeshwari and ors. Vs. Lakhan Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: I(2005)ACC467
Rajendra Menon, J.1. This appeal by the claimant is for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claims Case No. 44/94 decided on 28th January, 1998.2. It is the case of the claimant that they are the wife and children of late Raghunath Singh Gurjar who met with an accident on 16th March, 1992 in the evening at 6 p.m., when he was going on his Motor Cycle No. CPH 3809 with claimant No. 1 sitting behind him. When they reached the railway crossing near Vikky Factory, the railway gate was closed, therefore, the motor cycle was stopped, a truck bearing No. MKH 7754 came from behind dashed against the motor cycle because of which many persons were injured. Raghunath Singh sustained serious injuries and died on the spot itself.3. It is averred that Raghunath Singh was aged 38 years and was working as a Junior Scientist in the Agricultural Department Institute. He was earning Rs. 5,950/- per month. Certificate (Ex. P-1) is the sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »