Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramsanhee and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ669
S.S. Jha and A.K. Gohil, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.2. Contention of insurance company is that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.3. According to claimants, deceased Vrindawan was travelling in a trailer of the tractor. On way, trailer of the tractor turned turtle. Vrindawan came under the trailer and was seriously injured. He was taken to the hospital. He remained admitted in the hospital from 12.7.1994 to 18.7.1994. He died on 18.7.1994 due to the grievous injuries,4. Counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that from the facts narrated by the claimants itself, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Claimants themselves have admitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the trailer of the tractor. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In support of his contention, he referred to the judgment of Apex Court in t...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT63
1. Appellant State has filed this appeal against the impugned of judgment of acquittal dated 21-11-1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. No. 61/89, whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Balram, Hariram, Ram Kumar, Gyandas and Shriram, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Police Kurai, District Seoni charge-sheeted respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Balram, Hariram, Ram Kumar, Gyandas and Shriram, for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC, on the accusation of having attempted at the life of complainant Saligram, in the night of 16-4-89.3. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the Trial Court under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC.4. At the trial, the above charges were sought to be proved against the accused persons on the evidence of P.W. 1 Saligram, P.W. 2 Komal S...
Maharaja Bahadur Singh Kasliwal Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN29(MP)
ORDERBy the CourtThis decision rendered in this reference shall also govern disposal of other connected references being WT Ref. No. 64 of 1999 and IT Ref. No. 53 of 1997 as all these references involve common questions of law.2. This is a wealth-tax reference made by the Tribunal (ITAT) under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act to this court in RA No. 60/Ind/1997 which in turn arises out of an order of Tribunal dated 15-4-1997, passed in WTA Nos. 78, 79 and 80/Ind/1991 as also 12, 13 and 14/Ind/1992 (asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87) and (1987-88 to 1989-90) for answering following questions of law :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the beneficial interest held by the assessee in two trusts was only a limited interest in spite of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the assessees own case holding that the beneficial interest was held by him as individual and the assessee was not competent to throw his benefi...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahila Ramsanhee and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC766
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.2. Contention of the Insurance Company is that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured.3. According to the claimants, deceased Vrindawan was travelling in a trailer of the tractor. On way, trailer of the tractor turned turtle. Vrindawan came under the trailer and was seriously injured. He was taken to the hospital. He remained admitted in the hospital from 12.7.1984 to 18.7.1994. He died on 18.7.1994 due to grievous injuries.4. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that from the facts narrated by the claimants itself. Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Claimants themselves have admitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the trailer of the tractor. Therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In support of his contention, he referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the ca...
Geeta Gulati Vs. Chairman, Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR885]
Arun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition has assailed an order (P/1) dated 26.8.2003 of termination of services. Petitioner was initially appointed in Maharshi Vidya Mandir run by Maharshi Shiksha Sansthan as primary teacher in 1995, she was promoted as Post Graduate Teacher in January, 1998, further promoted to the post of Vice Principal as per order (P/2) dt. 21.8.2000. It is averred in the petition that for the last six years, her services were appreciated and due to excellent results, she was awarded cash prizes and letter of appreciation (P/3 and P/4). Considering the performance, petitioner was selected for Videography of English Lesson on all India basis.It is further averred that the petitioner was not getting due and proper treatment from respondents. She was marked absent for 18 days, in fact, she was present. After great struggle, salary was paid for the said period after enquiry and investigation. Reversion was ordered. She fought against it. Order was set aside. ...
Manoj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT250
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1.In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the office order (P-1) dated 29-4-2002/4-5-2002 by which decision has been taken by the respondents to provide civil engineering contract up to value of Rs. 5 lacs to the Project affected people only whose land has been acquired.2. It is averred in the petition that petitioners are degree/diploma holder engineers in civil/raining engineering. Petitioner No. 7 is association of unemployed engineering contractor. It is submitted that earlier an order (P-2) was issued on 28th April, 1999 in which it was provided that civil engineering contract will remain open to all the contractors up to Rs. 10 lacs; unemployed engineer holding degree/diploma shall be given preference by relaxing eligibility criteria for the value of contract up to Rs. 10 lacs. Another circular (P-3) was issued on 21st December, 2001 by which preferential treatment to the unemployed engineers holding degree/diploma was continued while relaxing th...
Arihant Builders, Developers and Investors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Ap ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(MP)471; [2005]277ITR239(MP)
S.K. Seth, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated August 22, 1997, passed by the Indore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. I. T. A./92/IND/96. By the order impugned, the Tribunal had refused to follow the earlier view taken by it. The facts relevant for the disposal of this case are as under.2. The petitioner is engaged in the construction work. For the assessment year 1991-92, it had filed its return. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment under Section 143 and ordered the refund under Section 143(1)(a)(ii). Thereafter the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2). The assessee raised the contention that once an assessment is framed and refund is ordered, then no notice could be issued under Section 143(2). That contention was repelled by the Assessing Officer. The matter was taken in the appeal by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who too ...
Arihant Builders, Developers and Investors (P) Ltd. Vs. Itat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN121(MP)
ORDERIn this writ petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing by the order dated 22-8-1997 passed by the Indore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. ITA/92/ IND./96. By the order impugned, Tribunal had refused to follow the earlier view taken by it. Facts relevant for the disposal of this case are as under:2. The petitioner is engaged in the construction work. For the assessment year 1991-92, it had filed its return. The assessing officer framed the assessment under section 143 and ordered the refund under section 143(1)(a)(ii). Therefore, the assessee's officer issued a notice under section 143(2). The assessee raised the contention that once an assessment is framed and refund is ordered, then no notice could be issued under section 143(2). That contention is repelled by the assessing officer. The matter was taken in the appeal by the assessee in the CIT Appeals which too maintained the order of the assessing officer. Agains...
Jayraj and anr. Vs. Kaluram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ636
S.S. Jha and A.K. Gohil, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle challenging the findings of Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accident by the tractor-trolley owned by Hariram, appellant No. 2, has not been proved. He submitted that there is no evidence regarding the factum of accident. He further submitted that the insurance company has improperly been exonerated. He has also assailed the quantum of compensation.2. The counsel for the claimants, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the award is on the lower side. Factum of the accident has been proved. He has filed cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation.3. Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.4. Deceased Sitaram s/o Kaluram was aged about 16 years. On 18.5.1995 he was travelling in a trolley of the tractor owned by Hariram, appellant N...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Daluram Mangilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST351(MP)
1. This is a reference made under Section 14(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 at the instance of the Revenue in reference case No. 1-1/S/70/94, which arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal on May 20, 1994 in appeal No. 104-3/87 to answer following question of law said to arise out of the appeal referred supra.2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee has not filed the return with guilty mind and hence the penalty under Section 43(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (since repealed) cannot be imposed?3. Heard.The only dispute in this reference is whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed by the assessing officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of appeals?4. In the opinion of the Tribunal, which is contained in paragraph 7 of the appellate order dated May 20, 1994 (annexure C) it is clear that the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the penalty impose...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »