Madhya Pradesh Court May 2004 Judgments
Yuvraj Gaud Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4576; 2004(3)MPHT111; 2004(3)MPLJ40
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a private complaint Case No. 40/2003, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaypur, District Sheopure, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Earlier M.Cr.C. No. 2795/2003 was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to appear before the Trial Court and to furnish bail, as he was summoned through bailable warrant.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the offence under Section 467, IPC though is triable by Magistrate First Class but is a non-cognizable and non-bailable offence and punishment of imprisonment of life or imprisonment of ten years and fine has been prescribed therefore, the Magistrate First Class is not having jurisdiction to grant the bail in cases where sentence of imprisonment for life has been prescribed for a particular offence and if the applicant wil...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Toufique Vs. Dr. H.L. Solanki and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT299
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by 4th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal by which it had allowed the application of restoration filed by respondent No. 1.2. No exhaustive statement of facts arc necessary for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that respondent No. 1 submitted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was dismissed in default on 3-9-2001. An application for restoration was filed on 8-4-2002. In the application, it has been contended that, from an Advocate, respondent No. 1 came to know on 4-4-2002 that his claim petition has been dismissed in default on 3-9-2001. According to respondent No. 1, his Counsel did not inform him regarding the dismissal of his case and when he came to know about it, he contacted another Advocate and filed restoration application on 8-4-2002.3. The restoration appl...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Jaiswal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT303
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act') and has been sentenced to suffer six months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, further imprisonment of three months by Trial Court. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been affirmed by the Appellate Court by the impugned order.2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 25-11-1989, Food Inspector D.P. Khare along with other Food Inspectors inspected restaurant of applicant and took the sample of 'Besan Ka Laddu'. After following the due procedure as contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the sample was sent to Public Analyst, who found the sample to be adulterated.3. According to Public Analyst, the sample of 'Besan Ka Laddu' was containing 'Kesridal Flour', as a result of which it was opined to be adulterated.4. The prosecution thereafter served notice under Section 13(2) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mubarak Master Vs. Hansraj Tanwar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT151; 2004(4)MPLJ280
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This petition is directed against the order (Annexure P-l), dated 10-5-2001 by First Additional District Judge, Shahdol in Case No. 3/2000 (Election Petition) (Hansraj Tanwar v. Mubarak Master and Ors.) by which the learned Second Additional District Judge has directed to hold recounting of ballots for the election of President, Dhanpuri Nagar Palika Parishad, held on 2242-99.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 7 contested the election of President of Nagar Palik Parishad, Dhanpuri in which petitioner was declared as a returned candidate. The polling was held on 22-12-99 and counting on 27-12-1999. Respondent No. 1 Hansraj Tanwar filed an application immediately after counting, praying for recounting on various grounds. The application was rejected by the Returning Officer vide order (Annexure P-2), dated 27-12-1999 on the ground that during counting no such objections were raised nor it was specified on which counting tabl...
Tag this Judgment!Agrawal Steels Vs. Grasim Industries Limited and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP125; 2005(2)MPHT233
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act'), the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') has called in question the sustainability of the judgment passed on 25-6-2001 by the learned IXth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Arbitration Case No. 36/2000 whereby the Court allowed the application preferred under Section 34 of the Act filed by the respondents and set aside the award of the learned arbitrator.2. The facts which are discernible from the order of the learned Trial Judge, the memorandum of appeal and other documents brought on record and are necessitous to be stated are that the respondent No. 1 is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the respondent No. 2 is a subsidiary concern of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is engaged in manufacture of cement and as widespread business throughout the country. It carries on business through its agents and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Sahu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ873; II(2005)DMC90
Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.1. Three accused persons namely-Mahendra Sahu s/o Kruparam Sahu, Niranjan Sahu s/o Kruparam Sahu and Devi Bai w/o Kruparam Sahu were tried before the 2nd, Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 93/97 and by judgment and order dated 27-7-2000 passed by him in the aforesaid sessions trial, accused Mahendra has been convicted under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and Niranjan Sahu and Dev Bai were acquitted of the charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, but they were convicted under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.2. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded, accused Mahendra has filed Criminal Appeal No. 897/2000 and other convicted accused persons Niranjan Sahu, and Dev Bai have Jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 860/2000. Since all the above-mentioned appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and order of conviction, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution's ca...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajit Singh Khajanchi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)253; [2005]272ITR208(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an application made at the instance of Revenue (IT Department) under Section 256(2) of the IT Act requesting this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the questions of law which according to Revenue do arise out of the order, dt. 25th Aug., 1993, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 1133/Ind/1989.2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are satisfied that question of law does arise out of the order, passed by the Tribunal, referred supra and hence, the Tribunal should have referred the two questions of law proposed by the Revenue to the Tribunal in their application made under Section 256(1) of the Act. In other words, on perusal of the entire controversy involved in the case, it does appear to us that questions proposed are questions of law and need to be answered by this Court in its reference jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!Surtyomal Vs. Smt. Chandabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2004MP225; 2004(3)MPLJ438
Arun Mishra, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned single Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Pandey on the question whether revision under Section 23-E of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'The Act') lies against an interlocutory order passed in a proceeding under Section 23-A of the Act as the High Court exercises the same power and follow the same procedure as prescribed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the amendment made in Section 115 of CPC by Amendment Act of 1999 by which a proviso has been inserted in Section 115, CPC that High Court shall not, under this Section , vary or reverse an order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or proceeding or except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.2. It was submitted before the Single Bench that revision against interlocutory order is not ma...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)297; [2005]272ITR118(MP); 2004(3)MPLJ338
Arun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on October 6, 1999, in I. T A. No. 545/Jab of 1997 relating to the assessment year 1994- 95.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax holding that deduction under Section 80HH , and Section 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the income arising from brass scrap obtained in the process of breaking and dismantling of guns is not an income derived from the industrial undertaking of iron rerolling and allowed the depreciation on truck at 25 per cent, as against 40 per cent, when the truck has been used for transporting the goods of others and hire charges amounting to Rs. 36,000 were received.3. The assessee carries on the business of running a rerolling mill wherein rerolled products of iron and steel are manufactured. The assessee filed a return of income supported by...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Agrawal Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN626(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J.This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 6-10-1999 in ITA No. 545/Jab/97 relating to assessment year 1994-95.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner holding that deduction under section 80HH and section 80I of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the income arising from brass scrap obtained in the process of breaking and dismantling of guns is not an income derived from industrial undertaking of iron rerolling and allowed the depreciation on truck at 25 per cent as against 40 per cent when the truck has been used for transporting the goods of others and higher charges amounting to Rs. 36,000 was received.3. The assessee carries on the business of running a rerolling mill wherein rerolled products of iron and steel are manufactured. The assessee filed a return of income supported by an audit report from Chartered Accountant under sectio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »