Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Abdul Rashid Khan and ors. Vs. Mahila Kamla and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT402; 2004(3)MPLJ91
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been filed by plaintiff having lost from both the Courts below.2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that the agricultural land in question was given to Chandhkhan, whose legal representatives are present appellants on the basis of sub- tenancy. The appellants initiated the proceedings before the Revenue Court for possession and for declaration of occupancy right and for mesne profit under Sections 91, 163, 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The case was decided in favour of Chandhkhan. Thereafter Motilal and Kasturibai, preferred an appeal before the Collector and Commissioner, but they were dismissed. However, the revision preferred by Motilal before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior was allowed and the case of Chandhkhan was dismissed. Before passing the order in revision by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, the possession of land in question was given to Chandhukhan in compliance to the order of the Revenue Courts. After the decision from Board of Revenue ...
Ramesh Kumar Nigam Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT47; 2004(3)MPLJ418
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order of punishment of censure dated 20th July, 2000 contained in Annexure A-1.2. The petitioner was posted as Joint Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation) (Senior Class-I) in the Directorate of Agriculture, Bhopal during 26-8-1992 to 18-4-2995. He was sent on deputation to the M.P. State Co-operative Apex Bank, Bhopal on 6-4-1995 without his consent and was relieved by the respondent No. 2 Director of Agriculture on 18-4-1995. It is put forth, there was no formal order posting the petitioner in foreign service. The petitioner stood superannuated on 31-12-1995. It is contended that there was no demand from the Apex Bank to the Government for deputation of its officer from Agriculture Department, but as the petitioner was not appreciated by many higher ups, he was lent on deputation. It is set forth that ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hukumchand Mills
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT22; 2004(2)MPLJ492; [2005]139STC1(MP)
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This review petition, at the instance of revenue, is directed against the common order dated 19-12-1995 passed by the Full Bench comprising of Hon'ble three Judges in M.C.C. No. 365 of 1985; M.C.C. No. 366 of 1986; M.C.C. No. 367 of 1986 and M.C.C. No. 446 of 1986. By the order impugned four reference applications made under Section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 since repealed (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') were disposed off and the question referred by the Tribunal in each application was answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the respondent herein and against the revenue. It was further held that Division Bench decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd., Nagda, (1989) 3 TLD 106 does not lay down correct law in so far it holds that sale of food articles in the canteen were exigible to tax.2. For the assessment years 1974 to 1976 and 1978 turnover of canteen sales run by the respondent, a public limited com...
Shaligram Vs. Nagar Palika
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT185; 2004(3)MPLJ29
S.S. Jha, J.1.This revision has been referred by Single Bench to the Larger Bench on the following question of law:--'Whether a revision against an order rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequential dismissal of the appeal is revisable or not ?2. An appeal was preferred under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Vidisha. Appeal was barred by limitation, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. Appellate Court has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act holding therein that the appellant has failed to explain each day's delay and no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and after dismissal of the application appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.3. Question requires to be determined in the case is whether the order passed by the Appellate ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajay Kumar Shankar Lal Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004]269ITR385(MP)
A.M. Sapre J.1. This is an application made by the Revenue (Income-tax Department) under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requesting this court to call for the reference on the question proposed for being answered by this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. This application arises out of an order, dated September 9, 1993, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in I. T. A. No. 673/Ind of 1992. The Tribunal by impugned order declined to make the reference by holding that the case does not involve any question of law and what is involved is a pure question of fact. It is this finding which is questioned by making this application and requesting this court to ask the Tribunal to make the reference.2. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and, Shri B. K. Joshi, learned counsel for the non-applicant.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was ri...
Kriparam Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ746; 2004(4)MPHT18; 2004(3)MPLJ33
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 282/1996, dated 27-9-2001, convicting appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.PC.2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that complainant Sunita alias Sua Bai alongwith her two minor children came to Gwalior. She was a labourer. On 15-9-1995, complainant went to her work place, at that juncture, prosecutrix aged about 11 years was present in the house, the accused who was residing alongwith her mother was also present. It is said that appellant by enticing, carried away the prosecutrix with him. When complainant came back to her house, she did not find prosecutrix, as a result of which, she searched her but did not find her. She also noticed that appellant is also not present at his house therefore, she made a complaint to the police but nothing was d...
Nand Kishore Vs. Chief Officer, Nagar Palika
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR921]; (2004)IIILLJ938MP
S.K. Seth, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated November 15, 2002, petitioner filed this writ petition. By the order impugned, application preferred by the applicant for issuance of the Revenue Recovery Certificate was rejected by the Labour Court, Ujjain.2. Necessary facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under. Petitioner was appointed as Pump Attendant in the year 1972 by respondent No. 2, M.P. Housing Board. The appointment was in the pay-scale of Rs. 60-120/- at the time of the appointment, which was revised to Rs. 445-635/- on the recommendations of the Choudhary Pay Commission. Petitioner, employed in the housing colony developed by respondent No. 2 as Pump Attendant, was transferred to the Municipal Council, Nagda somewhere in the year 1985. At the time of transfer petitioner was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 646.10 and increment was due in the month of September. Respondent No. 1 although accepted the petitioner as an employee but without any...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chunni Lal Premraj and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR578(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an application made by the Revenue (Income-tax Department) under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a reference to be made to this court on certain questions of law which according to the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal for being answered by this court under Section 256(1) of the Act. This application arises out of an order dated June 25,1993, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in I. T. A Nos. 557/Ind of 1991, 221/Ind of 1991, 163/Ind of 1993 and 485/Ind of 1991. In the opinion of the Tribunal, no referable question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal and hence, it being pure finding of fact and is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, the application made by the Revenue to the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Act was dismissed giving rise to filing of this application by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Act.2. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant a...
General Secretary, M.P. Bijli Karmchari Mahasangh Vs. Secretary, M.P. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT81; 2004(3)MPLJ129
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This writ petitioner is directed against Settlement dated 24-8-1996 (Annexure P-2) and consequent orders dated 26-8-1996 and 31-8-1996 (both cumulatively marked as Annexure P-1) to the writ petition. Annexures P-1 and P-2, brought about certain changes in the service conditions of employees of the respondent No. 1. Question is whether changes introduced are illegal ?2. Admittedly respondent No. 1 M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') is an 'employer' running an 'undertaking' which is governed by the provisions of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Both petitioner as well as respondent No 2 is registered trade unions, which represent interests of the employees of the Board. Respondent No. 2, M.P. Vidyut Karmchari Sangh (Federation) is the 'Representative Union' as provided under Section 2(28) of the Act. It gave a notice of change on 27-7-1994 under Section 31 (2) of the Act, seeking changes in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indore Body Builders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]275ITR59(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an application made by the Revenue (Income-tax Department) under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, seeking a reference to be made to this court on certain questions of law which according to the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal for being answered by this court under Section 256(1) of the Act. This application arises out of an order dated August 16, 1993, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in I. T. A. Nos. 181/IND/1993 and 189/IND/ 1993. In the opinion of the Tribunal, no referable question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal and hence, it being pure finding of fact and covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, the application made by the Revenue to the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Act was dismissed giving rise to filing of this application by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Act.2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the n...