Madhya Pradesh Court March 2004 Judgments
Prakash Chand Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(MP)576
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties and in particular, learned senior standing counsel for the IT Department, Shri Jain fairly conceded that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in WP No. 41 of 2003, Prakash Chand Khatri v. Dy. CIT and Anr. decided on 1st March, 2004, (Annex. A/11).2. Under these circumstances and in this view of the matter I do not with to burden this judgment by narrating the entire facts in detail as the same is neither necessary nor required.3. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.Annex. A/7, A/8, A/9 and. A/10 issued by respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari.4. The reasoning contained in the judgment rendered in the case of Prakash Chand Khatri (supra) shall equally apply to this case and the said judgment shall be treated as a part of this order. A copy of the said order passed in Prakash Chand...
Tag this Judgment!Shahzad Ahmed Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT466; 2004(3)MPLJ577
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order (Annexure P-4), by which Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur in Revision Case No.500/A-89/2002-03, dated 31-12-2003 allowed the revision of respondent No. 4 Ganesh Prasad Sareyam and the case has been remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for holding enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.4 Ganesh Prasad Sareyam, and to pass a fresh order.2. Respondent No. 4 Ganesh Prasad Sareyam is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dongaria. A complaint was made to the Collector, Chhindwara, in respect of some allegations against him. The Collector, Chhindwara vide letter dated 25-10-2002 initiated proceedings against him and the matter was sent to Sub- Divisional Officer for enquiry. The Sub-Divisional Officer after enquiry removed him from the office of Sarpanch and also disqualified him for six years from contesting election on the aforesaid post. This order (Annexure P-1), dated 22-7-2003 p...
Tag this Judgment!Brijendra Singh Thakur Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP69; 2004(3)MPHT534; 2004(3)MPLJ852
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by action of respondent No. 2, Mining Officer, Annexure P-3 (R-4/3), dated 23-12-2003 by which respondent No. 4 has been permitted to extract minor mineral from the area of mine which has been granted to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-1).2. Short facts of the case are that Janpad Panchayat - Patan granted a quarry lease of mooram to the petitioner for a period from 16-4-2003 to 31-3-2004. An agreement in this regard was executed by respondent No. 3, in favour of the petitioner Annexure P-1. The survey number and leased area is specified in Schedule A, of the agreement (Annexure P-1), which shows that the area 2.280 of Khasra Number 212 of Village Shahsan, Block Patan, Tehsil Patan was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is duly operating the quarry as per agreement and has paid all the instalments within time. Respondent No. 2, Mining Officer, Jabalpur issued a temporary permit for extraction of mining of minor mi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohd. Ishaq Mohd. Gulam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)492; [2005]276ITR13(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. These two appeals involve common question for consideration. They are being dealt with together.2. M.A. No. 40 of 2004 has been filed by the Revenue for relating asst. yr. 1997-98. M.A. No. 11 of 2004 pertains to asst. yr. 1998-99.3. Briefly noted, the facts indicate that assessee, M/s Mohd. Ishaq Mohd, Gulam derives income from manufacture and sale of Bidis, filed its return for the asst. yr. 1997-98 on 31st Oct., 1997, declaring total income of Rs. 1,12,30,640. Assessment was completed vide order (Annex. A) dt. 22nd March, 2000 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO determined total income at Rs. 1,13,15,834. The CIT, in the capacity of revisional authority found that certain credits were shown which were accepted by the AO on the strength of confirmation. The assessee filed confirmation with GIR/PAN. The revisional authority has passed an order (Annex. B) on 5th Nov., 2001 that source of deposit was not examined with respect to the credit made by 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarvanlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC781; 2005ACJ1401; 2004(4)MPHT404; 2005(1)MPLJ186
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. The appellant/insurer has assailed the award dated 25-11-2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat, in Claim Case No. 62/2002, wherein an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- is awarded to the respondent/claimant Nos. 1 and 2, for death of their son Vijay Kumar, aged 18 years.2. According to the claimant/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on 29-4-2002 when deceased Vijay Kumar was working under the employment of non-applicant No. 2, the owner of Tractor No. MP-20-B/6420, as a loader (Hammal), on aforesaid Tractor, he got crushed under the wheel of the Tractor, when non-applicant No. 1 Manohar, drove the Tractor rashly and negligently at Balaghat-Baihar Road, near railway crossing and Vijay Kumar, who was sitting in the Tractor, along with other loaders fell to the ground and thus came under the wheel.3. The learned Tribunal adjudged the deceased's income to be Rs. 2000/- per month on the basis of thorough assessment of evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kali and ors. Vs. Ramadhar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT158; 2004(3)MPLJ598
S.K. Pande, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 3-7-89, passed by II ADJ, Rewa in C.A. No. 22-A/82, reversing the judgment-decree dated 29-9-81, passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Rewa in C.S. No. 123-A/80, defendant/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.2. The appeal has been heard on the following substantial questions of law :-'(1) Whether Ex. P-3 could confer title to respondent No. 1 Ramadhar in respect of the suit property ?(2) Whether the finding that the plaintiff remains in possession of the suit property continuously from the date of execution of Ex. P-3 till date is perverse ?'3. Late Hirdan had two wives. Ram Pyare @ Pyare and defendant Late Ram Nihore respectively were sons from first and second wives. Late Hirdan in his life time settled agricultural lands separately in the name of Late Pyare and Late Ram Nihore. Suit land Khasra No. 1001 (new No. 1001/1, 1001/2) area 1.75 acre, Village Amiliha, Tehsil Hujur, District Rewa was recorded...
Tag this Judgment!Major Tps Kandra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT397
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner through this petition has prayed for number of reliefs but has confined the prayer for quashment of the ACRs contained in Annexure P-3, for all other reliefs are absolutely dependent on the same.2. The facts have been narrated in great detail in the petition. The petitioner, who is the Lieutenant Colonel (in Time Scale), has faced the dejection of non-promotion to the post of Lieutenant Colonel (Selection Grade). Such a situation has come into being, as has been put forth in the petition, as there has been improper consideration of his case on the backdrop of certain ACRs, which have no legs to stand upon. In essence, in the absence of such ACRs, or in the event of annulment of such ACRs, the petitioner has extremely a bright chance to be considered in proper perspective by the Selection Board for the promotional post, namely, Lieutenant Colonel (Selection Grade). This being the expose of fact...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ajmersingh (Deceased) Through Legal Heir-s ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT87; 2004(3)MPLJ52
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant/State challenging judgment and decree dated 21-12-1995 passed by First Additional District Judge, Bhind in Civil Appeal No. 9-A/92 whereby the Additional District Judge has reversed the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1986 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Mehgaon, District Bhind in Civil Suit No. 22-A/1984.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction alleging that he is owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 1068/1, 2069/1 and 2070/2 situated in Village Soudha, Tehsil Mehgaon, District Bhind. It is alleged that the said Village was a Zamindari Village and the plaintiff was in possession of the said land prior to coming into force of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act which came into force on 25th June, 1951.3. It is alleged that the plaintiff was the Ex-Zamindar of the said Village and the land in question was his Khudkasht land and, therefore, said...
Tag this Judgment!Dinanath Vimal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT393; 2004(2)MPLJ278
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13-3-2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 8/02. By the order impugned, learned Court below has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short referred to as 'Act') and has registered a criminal case against the applicant.Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Ujjain on a written report made by Abdul Salam Khan on 14-2-2000 registered a criminal case against the applicant at Crime No. 18/2000. After completing investigation, police had filed Khatma report under Section 173 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for short). Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20-6-2002 came to the conclusion that prima facie a case was made out against the applicant, therefore did not accept the Khatma Report and directed that the case d...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab National Bank Vs. Pack and Print and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC467
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Bank on the ground that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit against the guarantor on the ground of limitation. Counsel for the appellant submitted that dismissal of the suit against the guarantor as barred by limitation is bad in law. Counsel for the appellant invited attention to para 67 of the judgment of the trial Court wherein it is held that suit is within limitation against defendants 1 to 3 as they have acknowledged their liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. But this acknowledgement is not binding upon defendant Nos. 4 and 5 guarantors. Guarantors are not bound by the acknowledgement of debtor and suit against guarantor has been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the defendants 1 to 3 had executed documents on 12.9.1980, 11/2/1981 and 11.1.1983 accepting their liability on 11.1.1983 and 19.1.1983. Suit was on 10th June, 1984.3. Only question involved in this appeal is whether the guarantor ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »