Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Raghavan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR64(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Income-tax Department) under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order, dated March 7, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. (SS) A. No. 31/Ind of 1997.2. 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.3. Heard Shri R. L. Jain learned counsel for the appellant.4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal and that the two questions proposed by the appellant (Revenue) do not satisfy the rigour of substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A of the Act.5. The issue relates to grant of certain deletions which were made...
Rajendra Vs. Smt. Meena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP166
S.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been preferred by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 13-12-2001, passed by Additional District Judge Burhanpur, in C.S. No. 49-A/98, whereby his application Under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage has been rejected.2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized at village Chahardi, Distt. Jalgaon (Maharashtra) on 7th of May, 1994.3. The case of the appellant briefly narrated is that only 3 or 4 days after the marriage on the pretext of illness, the respondent deprived the appellant of the pleasures of marital life and informed him that she wanted to marry a teacher of village Chahardi but her parents married her with him against her wishes and only a few days after the marriage she started insisting for giving her maintenance and also for divorce. The appellant called the father of the respo...
Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT373; 2004(4)MPLJ6
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders (Annexure P-5) by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sohagpur, dated 3-10-2002, Annexure P-6 by the Collector, Hoshangabad, dated 31-3-2003 and Annexure P-7 by the Commissioner, Hoshangabad, dated 3-7-2003, by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baruadhana, Block Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad, because of allegations of misconduct shown in show-cause notice (Annexure P-2).2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :--Petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baruadhana on 30-1-2000. Some complaint was made against the petitioner and preliminary enquiry was conducted by Chief Execution Officer, Sohagpur, who found, prima facie, misconduct established, and on the basis of this the Sub-Divisional Officer issued the petitioner show-cause notice (Annexure P-2), dated 22-5-2002. Petitioner did not accept to the allegations made in the preliminary enquiry. Ther...
Smt. Maya Trivedi Vs. Rajnikant Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT190
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. These revisions under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to the 'Act' for convenience), are directed against the order dated 31-5-2003 passed by R.C.A., Jabalpur in Eviction Case Nos. 55-A/90 (7) 2002, 53-A/90 (7) 2002, 54-A/90 (7) 20,02, whereby, petitioner's applications under Section 23-A (b) of the Act seeking eviction of tenants have been dismissed.2. Admittedly, respondents are tenants of the petitioner in the suit premises Nos. 1040, 1039, Ravindra Nagar, Adhartal, Jabalpur. Petitioner filed applications under Section 23-A (b) of the Act before the RCA seeking their eviction on the ground that the suit premises are bona fide required for starting a business by her major son Sandeep Trivedi who at present is a jobless person. The applications were resisted by the respondents stating inter alia that the petitioner although is recovering rent from the respondents, as per Municipal Record, is not the owner of the suit premi...
Harinarayan Khati Vs. Rekhabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT270; 2004(4)MPLJ455
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision aims at setting aside the order dated 18-11-2003 passed by the learned Fifth Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr. Rev. No. 131/2003 thereby setting aside the order dated 10-5-2003 passed in Misc. Cr, Case No. 8/01 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarana. The learned Revisional Court granted maintenance to the wife Rekhabai at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- from 17-3-2001 with costs Rs. 1,000/- while the learned Trial Court allowed the application only in respect of non-applicant No. 2 granting him maintenance @ 1,000/- per month from the date of the order till he attains majority and costs Rs. 500/-.Against the aforesaid order, the applicant/husband has preferred this revision.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the non-applicant Rekhabai and her son Kamal had filed an application for grant of maintenance before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarana on the ground that the applicant is the husband of non-applican...
Dhannalal Vs. Dharamlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT42; 2004(4)MPLJ432
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the judgment-decree dated 10-9-2003, passed by ADJ, Khurai, in C.A. No. 5-B/2002.2. Plaintiff/petitioner instituted C.S. No. 19-B/2002 before Civil Judge Class I, Khurai for recovery of Rs. 23,000/- together with interest from the defendant/respondent on the ground that on 2-12-97, the aforesaid amount was deposited by him with the defendant/respondent. On demand, the defendant/respondent failed to refund the same. The suit aforesaid has been resisted by the defendant/respondent stating inter alia that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is false as no amount was ever been deposited with him and the agreement dated 2-12-97 was never executed between the parties. The Civil Judge accepting the contention of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment dated 31-7-2002 in C.S. No. 19-B/2002 held that the defendant/respondent obtained the amount aforesaid from the plaintiff/petitioner and the agreement (Exhibit ...
Smt. Kirti Chouksey Vs. Rajiv Chouksey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT187; 2005(1)MPLJ162
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.With consent heard finally.1. By filing this Miscellaneous Civil Case the applicant/wife is seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 45-A/2003 and Case No. 6/2003 pending before the Additional District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hoshangabad.2. The material facts are that the respondent/husband had filed a Suit No. 45-A/2003 against the applicant/wife seeking divorce from her on the ground that she is incurably of unsound mind. He also filed a case numbered as 6/2003 under Guardians and Wards Act seeking guardianship of his son Aman who is with the applicant. Both these cases are pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur.3. The applicant's case is that on her report and offence under Section 498A of the IPC has been registered against the respondent/husband and the case is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad. Similarly one case filed by her seeking ...
Mubarik and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT473
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellants above named stood convicted for commission of murder and dowry death of Rehmat Bi, daughter-in-law of appellant Nos. 1 and 3 and wife of appellant No. 2 in nuptial home by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonkatch, District Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 197/96, thereby finding the appellant Kamrunnissa guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 304B, Indian Penal Code and appellants Mubarik and Shakir Hussain of the offence punishable under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code convicted them accordingly and sentenced Kamrunnissa to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment thereof to suffer further R.I. for one year under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code and appellants Mubarik and Shakir Hussain each to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They have, therefore, preferred this appeal.2. The facts of...
State of M.P. Vs. Munna Alias Narayan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT539; 2004(3)MPLJ635
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Slate against acquittal of respondent for an offence under Section 302, IPC by the Court of Shri S.L. Jain, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 8/86, decided on 16-8-1988.2. Brief facts of the case are that, there was previous enmity between deceased Mangaram and Bheekharam (father of respondent Munna) and Brij Kishore, (brother of respondent Munna). It is alleged that Ashok son of Sitaram has shot Dayanand Pathak over a dispute of a house at Morena. Dayanand was brother of respondent Munna. After the incident, Sitaram and his son Ashok were absconding. Sitaram and deceased Mangaram are brothers. According to the prosecution, Kedar (P.W. 9), deceased Mangaram and one Badri Baghele were going on their bicycles towards Morar. Mangaram was going to Lashkar for moving application for the release of Ashok on bail. Near Sohsa, a bus of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation was seen by Kedar (P.W. 9) coming from the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.M. Steels (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)45
ORDER1. This is an application made under Section 265(2) of IT Act by the Revenue (IT Department) requesting this Court to direct the Tribunal to make a reference on the question proposed. It arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal on 30th June, 1998, passed in RA No. 63/Ind/1998 which, in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal, dt. 16th Feb., 1998 in appeal bearing ITA No. 258/Ind/1994 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1989-90.2. Since the Tribunal declined to make a reference to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Act and hence, need arose to seek direction from this Court to the Tribunal for making the reference on the question so proposed which according to the petitioner arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal decided against the petitioner.3. It was not disputed by the parties that the issue sought to be canvassed in this matter has since been answered in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Surana Steel (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT and Ors. :...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »