Madhya Pradesh Court October 2004 Judgments
Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR861]; (2005)IIILLJ212MP; 2004(4)MPHT343; 2004(4)MPLJ555
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The petitioner was working as an Accountant in the Office of the Conservator of Forests, Bhopal Division. He was caught in a bribery trap laid by the Lokayu,kta Police. A challan (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted before the Special Court, Bhopal on 9-4-2002 charging him with offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, he was convicted and sentenced by judgment dated 12-12-2003 in Special Case No. 4 of 2002 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- on each score in default of which to undergo a further imprisonment of one month for each default. The petitioner states that he has challenged the conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 2156 of 2003 wherein this Court by order dated 26-12-2003, has suspended the execution of sentence of imprisonment.2. When the charge-sheet was filed in the Spe...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Tripathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT355; 2004(4)MPLJ564
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The petitioner claims that he worked as ad-hoc Assistant Teacher between 8-3-1981 to 30-4-1981 and again from 31-8-1981 to 30-44982, that thereafter his services were dispensed with without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity. He, therefore, filed an Application (O.A No. 967 of 1998) before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal praying that he may be taken back into service. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 21-5-2002 for the reasons stated in its order passed on the same day in Raghunath Prasad Badgiya v. State of M.P. (O.A. No. 1310/1998). The petitioner has challenged the said order of the Tribunal in this writ petition filed on 11-3-2004 with a further prayer that he may be permitted to work in the post of Assistant Teacher with all back-wages and all consequential benefits by regularising his service from the date of initial appointment.2. When the said writ petition came up before the Division Be...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila Singh Vs. Mawasi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT489; 2005(1)MPLJ543
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 4 here in this appeal.2. In brief the suit of the plaintiffs is that they are Bhumiswamis of the suit land. Earlier their father Vasai Ahir was the Bhumiswami. The suit land is situated in Khasra No. 143 area 0.672 arey. In 0.016 arey there was a hut comprising of two rooms of the plaintiffs in which Vasai lived and after his death the plaintiffs were residing. The rest portion of the land is being cultivated by them. Defendant Dadau without any authority and right sold the disputed land to defendant No. 2 Sushila Singh by a registered sale-deed. Thereafter on 9-2-1979 the husband of the defendant No. 2 along with Dadau came and inserted his lock. Thus a suit for cancellation of sale-deed executed by Dadau in favour of the defendant No. 2 and for recovery of possession was filed...
Tag this Judgment!Gudda Alias Brajmohan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT108; 2005(1)MPLJ585
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13-3-2001 passed by Special Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 1996 convicting the appellant under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring an appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Two persons were arrayed as accused persons. They are namely present appellant Gudda alias Brajmohan and another Balli alias Rajesh. Since present appellant was absconding accused Balli alias Rajesh was tried and he was convicted by judgment dated 1-2-1997 by the Trial Court holding that he committed the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years. Accused Balli alias Rajesh assailed his judgment of conviction by preferring an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 1997) to this Court which was dismissed on 11-2-1998. After arrest, present appe...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rajlaxmi Chandrawat Vs. the Board of Secondary Education and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR94]; 2005(1)MPHT257; 2005(1)MPLJ152
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. The main question involves in this petition is with regard to termination of probationer during the maximum period prescribed in the service Rules for probation, although in the appointment order the period was mentioned as one year and subsequent order has not been issued extending the period of probation.2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher against a vacant post of Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1440-50-2340-60-2640 vide order dated 16-1-96. The order has been issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal. She was posted in Government Model High School, Jaora run by the Board of Secondary Education. It is mentioned in the order that the said appointment is on probation for a period of one year. The petitioner in pursuance to the said order joined services on 1-3-96. She further submits that vide the letter dated 19-11-97 the Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jaora has...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Krishna Neema Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR856]; (2005)IILLJ710MP; 2005(1)MPHT291; 2005(1)MPLJ112
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. By this petition, petitioner has challenged quashing of the orders (Anncxure P-6, dated 9-2-97 and Annexure P-5, dated 6-4-87), an order of voluntary abandonment of services from the Bank and appellate order (Annexure P-16, dated 24-10-97), dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against an order dated 6-4-87, Annexure P-5.2. The facts of the case arc that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent Bank, Central Bank of India with effect from 31 -7-1973. He was also confirmed with effect from the date of joining. The petitioner was sick having some lever ailment so he submitted an application on 22-7-86 to 25-7- 86. Thereafter he further extended his leave from 26-7-86 to 1-8-86. Then the ailment of the petitioner was continued. He further submitted an application for medical leave from 2-8-86 to 31-10-86. Thereafter he applied for extension of his medical leave vide letter dated 2-11 -86.3. As per the petitioner thereafter he went to join his dutie...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila Bhadoriya and ors. Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC31; IV(2005)ACC603; 2005ACJ831; 2005(1)MPHT486; 2005(1)MPLJ372
S.S. Jha, J. 1. This case is referred to the larger Bench to settle the question whether apportionment is permissible in case of composite negligence. This Court has decided a number of cases on the question of composite negligence and due to divergent view pertaining to composite negligence, the dispute is referred to the larger Bench.2. First case decided on this question is Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjusri Raha and Ors., 1968 ACJ 1 MP. In this case, the Court considered types of negligence including composite negligence and contributory negligence and after considering the difference between contributory negligence and composite negligence, it is held that when the victim has suffered injuries or death is caused on account of act of two vehicles without his fault, then the claimant is free to choose any of the joint tort-feasors and claim compensation from him. While considering this aspect, it is held that in our view where as a result of collision between two motor vehicles, a perso...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shyamlal M. Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]276ITR156(MP)
1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of other connected appeals being I. T. A. Nos. 82/99, and 88/99 because all these appeals arise out of one common impugned order passed by the Tribunal ('the I.T.A.T.').2. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against a common order dated February 16, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 1003/Ind/93 along with other appeals. It was admitted for hearing on February 4, 2000, on two substantial questions of law referred to infra :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the law the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, could be levied in the case, where the income returned in the revised return was accepted and assessed in the hands of the assessee even though the revised returns were filed after the search and subsequent inquiries made...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(MP)675; [2005]275ITR54(MP)
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, dated March 26, 2004, in I. T. A. No. 502/Ind of 2003 relating to the assessment year 1998-99.2. The business of the respondent-assessee consists of purchasing raw cotton, processing such cotton by ginning and pressing, and then selling the processed cotton. The assessee filed its return of income on November 27, 1998, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,11,870. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1)(ii) were issued. The assessee commenced its business transactions in August, 1997, and processing activities in November 1997. The Assessing Officer (Income-tax Officer, Itarsi) found that the balance-sheet showed Rs. 7,52,000 as paid up capital and Rs. 6,61,000 as share application money received pending allotment. The assessee's accounts also showed unsecured loans a...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Shyamlal M. Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN666(MP)
ORDERThe decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of other connected appeals being I.T.A. Nos. 82/99, and 88/99 because all these appeals arise out of one common impugned order passed by the Tribunal (I.T.A.T.).2. This is an appeal filed by revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against a common order dated 16-21999 passed by ITAT in ITA No. 1003/Ind./93 alongwith other appeals. It was admitted for hearing on 4-2-2000 on two substantial questions of law referred infra:'I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the law the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, could be levied in the case, where the income returned in the revised return was accepted and assessed in the hands of' the assessee even though the revised returns were filed after the search and subsequent inquiries made by the department during the course of the assessment proceedings?2. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »