Madhya Pradesh Court October 2004 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.
Nirdosh Model Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT397
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The protagonists on the centre stage can not be oblivious of the fact that in the name of performance they can totally forget the script. In a drama of law better it is the performers maintain 'historic continuity' as a part of sacrosanct duty, being a real necessity rather than march over it treating it as a corpse. Every order by a Court has to be given due respect and can not be overlooked by the persons who are required to act, on the ground that they had acted earlier but due to inadvertence could not say so. The silence was neither sanguine nor golden. The attempt to equate it with the power of unchanted 'mantra' only invites the frown of law. It is utter ignorance, a sacrilege and unacceptable omission, if I say so.2. Presently I shall proceed to state the factual score. The petitioner, the President of Municipal Council, Waraseoni, District Balaghat has visited this Court seeking interference by issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order da...
Cit Vs. Om Prakash Bagadia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN637(MP)
ORDERSapre, J.The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of ITA No. 60 of 2003, as both these appeals arise out of common order and secondly, appeals arise between the same parties.2. This is an appeal filed by revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 27-2-2003, passed by I.T.A.T. in 1TA Nos. 484 & 485/IND./2002.3. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Income Tax Act for admission of appeal.4. Heard Shri A.P. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant.5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that the appeal has no substance. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Act and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed i...
Sunder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2732; 2005(1)MPHT53; 2003(1)MPLJ118
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This revision is filed by the accused challenging order dated 20-5-2004 passed by Additional Sessions, Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 102/2002, whereby the Court below has allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.PC for short) and directed to arraign the present petitioner as accused in the said case.2. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal case is filed against Sitaram, Ramniwas, Vedram on the complaint lodged by one Munnalal for committing offence under Sections 307, 302/34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPO for short). Munnalal lodged the report at 10.30 A.M. on 24-2-2002 that his younger brother Rajendra Singh was working in his field. The field of Sitaram and Vedram is adjacent to the field of Rajendra Singh and there is a narrow lane bifurcating the two fields. Bharat and Vasudeo who were relatives of the complainant were also present there. On the boundary of the field...
Faiz Mohd. Faiz Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT393
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pandarwani, Janpad Panchayat Lalbarra, District Balghat. The Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Prescribed Authority, Waraseoni issued a show-cause notice dated 27-3- 2003 against the petitioner in respect of various amount collected by the petitioner with a notice why the matter be not handed over to police. Petitioner submitted reply. Thereafter, the SDO passed the order (Annexure P-4), dated 3-2-2004 by which petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch. The order (Annexure P-4) was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Balaghat, in Appeal No. 32-A/89 year 2003-2004, and by order, dated 10-6-2004 (Annexure P-2), the Additional Collector remanded the case to the SDO on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner and petitioner was not issued a proper notice and the notice which was for specific purpose was not given effect to. The Additional Collecto...
Vimal Kumar Vs. Deshdiwaker and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP37; 2004(4)MPLJ289
A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff having lost from both the Courts below.2. The plaintiff filed suit for damages to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- on account of defamatory statement published by defendant No. 1 by publishing a pamphlet naming. ^^lekt loksZijh**-^^v vHkh dqN le; ifgys ea=h vFkkZr oknhfdlh fodkl dk;Z esa ck/kk Mkyus ds pDdVj esa lyk[kksa ds ihNs gks x;s tks tSudU;k Ldwy dh Nk=kvksa dks Fkkus ys tkdj ukjsckth djokbZ vkidk rks vUnj ckgjgksuk rks yxk jgrk gS ysfdu vids futh ekeyksa esa Ldwy dh Nk=kvksa dks Fkkus rdtkuk 'kksHkk ugha nsrk gSAc lekt ds lsod foey dqekj dh og dkyh djrwrtks 'kk;n gh fdlh laLFkk ds eU=h us dh rks mUgksus og dj fn[kkbZ laLFkk ds cSBdfnukad 17@6@82 ,oa 1@7@82dks lsod us le; ij dksje u gksus ij vuqifLFkr U;kf;a dh >wBh izkslsfMaxjftLVj esa ntZ dj izLrkoksa ij fu.kZ; fy;sAl laLFkk dh ek= nks cSBdksa ls vUnkt yxkldrs gS fd lekt dk lsod fdruk lkQ ikd gS fny ds rks lkQ gks ldrs gS dye ds cgqrcsbZeku gS gsjk Qsjh esa ekLV...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. P.K. JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ877
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. This revision, by the State, is directed against the order dated 17-1-2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14/2002, by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bhopal, whereby she has discharged the non-applicants of the charges under Sections 372, 373, 317 and 176 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. According to the prosecution case, there is one Shanti Super Specialists Hospital in Bhopal of which non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the Directors. Both of them are qualified doctors. They had employed non-applicant No. 3 as Nurse and non-applicant No. 4 as Cashier in the said hospital. The non-applicant No. 5 worked as a Lab Technician in that hospital.3. The police of Police Station, Shahjahanabad, Bhopal, received an information that the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with their hospital staff, were selling newly born babies of unwed mothers from the hospital. On 9-11-2001 the Station House Officer arranged a trap against them by sending Police C...
Ram Vilas and anr. Vs. Karamjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ165
Rajeev Gupta and S.R. Waghmare, JJ.1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard.2. This is a claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad, vide award dated 19.3.2004, passed in M.A.C.T. No. 35 of 2003.3. The appellants, who are the unfortunate parents of deceased Vijay Mohan, claimed compensation of Rs. 81,90,000 for his death in a motor accident, when his motor cycle was dashed by the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KC 2533, on 19.1.2003, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants pleaded that Vijay Mohan was earning Rs. 2,30,000 per annum as a partner of Anand Traders, dealing in auto parts and from agriculture.4. The Tribunal on the evidence led by the claimants held that Vijay Mohan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the dr...
State Bank of Indore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)62; [2005]275ITR23(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of assessee by the Tribunal by their order, dt. 2nd July, 1998, passed in RA Nos. 161 and 162/Ind/1997 which arise out of an order passed by the Tribunal, dt. 5th Aug., 1997 in ITA Nos. 210 & 211/Ind/1992 to this Court for answering the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of lower authorities and holding that expenditure at 10 paise per Rs. 100 of the dividend income be taken for deduction under Section 80M ?'2. Facts insofar as they are relevant for answering the aforesaid question need to be taken note of from the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal while referring the question to this Court.3. The issue relates to asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87. The assessee is a bank and is declared to be a company for the purpose of IT Act by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The assessee als...
M.P. State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Mangalam Petro Chemicals
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT245
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter stated as 'Act') against the order dated 24-7-2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 23-B/91 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur refusing to set aside the award dated 13-9-99 and making it a rule of the Court.2. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as under :-The appellants invited tender for the sale of unserviceable mixed grade lubricating oil and unserviceable grease available with its various generation stores. The respondent's tender was accepted. A sale order dated 16-2-94 was issued in favour of the respondent. The terms and conditions of the tender documents were incorporated in the sale order. As per Clause 3 of it the total price of the material was fixed to Rs. 6,29,181.30 exclusive of sales tax at the rate of 12% which was to be paid by the respondent. As per the sale order the respondent was required to deposit 10% of full sale proceeds as s...
Smt. Padma and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT198
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The Harda Municipal Council (third respondent) auctioned the lease hold rights (for a period of 30 years) in regard to certain shops owned by it. According to the terms of auction, the Lessees will have to pay the agreed premium and a monthly rent (the rent had to be increased by 25% every three years). The petitioners were the successful bidders in regard to various shops. The third respondent sent communications dated 25-1-2000 to each of the petitioners requiring them to get their lease deeds registered. The petitioners had to pay stamp duty under Article 35 (a) (v) and 35 (c) of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act at conveyance rate in regard to five times the average annual rent and in regard to the premium/advance. The petitioners gave a representation dated 10-9-2001 to the State Government seeking exemption from payment of stamp duty under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as amended in Madhya Pradesh, for short 'the Act'). Such exemption was not g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »