Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ashalata Dubey and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT66
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 29-9-1998, passed in Claim Case No. 76/94, by M.A.C.T., Jabalpur, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,58,800/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation has been awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and the appellant has been directed to pay 50% of the amount awarded, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that on 14-9-1991 at about 11.30 A.M., deceased Lalit Mohan Dubey was going with respondent No. 9 on his Luna moped bearing registration No. MP 20/1701, as a pillion rider. At that time, respondent No. 7, who was driving scooter bearing registration No. MP 25/0780 rashly and negligently dashed the Luna from the back resulting into the deceased falling down to the ground and sustaining injuries. Deceased was shifted to the hospital where he was declared dead. Since both the vehicles were involved in the accident, therefore the drive...
Kamlesh Pathak and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC348; 2005(3)MPHT426; 2005(2)MPLJ588
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the First Information Report in Criminal Case No. 302/03 lodged by respondent Pawan Sharma against the present petitioners and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof.2. The brief facts of the case are that Kamlesh Pathak has some family dispute with his wife, Smt. Meera Pathak, who has lodged the complaint against the present petitioner No. 1, Kamlesh Pathak for committing offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and also filed proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance. She was residing with her brother, respondent No. 2, Pawan Sharma. It is alleged by the petitioner that he along with his Lawyer, Mr. Nandan Dixit went to the house of respondent No. 2, Pawan Sharma for reconciliation of the dispute, it is alleged by the petitioner that at time respondent No. 2 and his colleagues fired gun shot against the present petitioner and his Counsel in which his Counsel, Mr. Na...
Keshav Pulses Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(MP)482
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern disposal of other appeal being IT Appeal No. 84 of 2004, because both these appeals arise between the same parties, i.e., filed by the same assessee.2. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 17th Sept., 2003, passed by Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 276/Ind/1998 in relation to asst. yr. 1991-92.3. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act that being the pre-requisite for admission of appeal.4. Heard Shri H.C. Sarda, learned Counsel for the appellant.5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we find no substantial question of law arises out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.6. In substance, the question arose before the AO in respect of certain additions as a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagdish Chand Agrawal (Late)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(MP)188; [2005]278ITR132(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern disposal of other connected appeals being I. T. A. Nos. 48, 49 and 57 of 2000, as all these four appeals arise out of common order passed by the Tribunal. 2. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 24, 2000, passed by the Tribunal (the ITAT) in I. T. A. Nos. 391 to 394/ Ind of 1998 in relation to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1994-95. The other appeals arise out of different assessment years.3. At the outset, we may mention that this appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in annulling the assessment on the ground that the assessment was completed much after the expiry of the limitation period for framing the assessment ?2. Whether, on the facts and i...
Pitambar Das Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR251]; 2005(3)MPHT60; 2005(1)MPLJ173
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. The appellant was working as a conductor of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). He was served with a charge-sheet on 29-1-1996 on the ground that he was on duty of a bus belonging to the Corporation plying between Narsinghpur to Pipariya, the same was checked on 23-12-1995 by the Flying Squad of the Corporation and out of total 34 passengers, 17 passengers were found travelling without tickets from whom though he had already received the fare amount but with dishonest intention did not issue tickets to them. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and denied the allegations, As the reply was found to be unsatisfactory, domestic enquiry was conducted against him. In the enquiry he was found guilty of charges and as such the appellant was dismissed from service. Assailing the order of dismissal the appellant approached to the Labour Court No. 1, Bhopal, by filing an application under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial...
Akhilesh Kesarwani and anr. Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP211
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for the relief to declare that term of petitioners as Member of Court arid Executive Council is valid till 9-1-2005. Petitioners are entitled to function as such, respondents be commanded to allow the petitioners to function without any obstruction or fetter.2. The petitioners were elected as representative of registered graduates on 24-11-2000, on being registered graduates they became entitled to be members of the Court as specified in the category (xix) mentioned in Group C of Section 20(1) of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'). The Court as per Section 20(1) of Adhiniyam was constituted on 10-1-2002, notification (P/l) was published on the same very day. As per Section 20(3) of Adhiniyam term of Court is three years, that is, up to 9-1-2005. Petitioners term is co-extensive and coterminous with the term of the Court. Thereafter petitioners were elected as Members...
Sharad Kumar Parashar Vs. Managing Director, M.P. Text Book Corporatio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR209]
Arun Mishra, J.1. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. In these two petitions same award has been assailed. M.P. Text Book Corporation Bhopal has assailed the reinstatement part whereas workman has filed writ petition against part of award denying the back wages to him. Respondent-workman Shri S.K. Parasar has rendered services for more than 240 days in the year 1991-92. His services were terminated without compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act; as such Labour Court has held the retrenchment to be illegal and void, however, as the workman has filed an application for conciliation belatedly in 1999, the back wages have been rightly denied. In my opinion, the approach adopted by the Labour Court is proper; back wages owing to the delay have been denied. The provision of Section 25F of the ID Act was not complied with, hence, the termination has been rightly held to be illegal and void; workman has rendered the services for more, than 240 days as required.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›