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.
Surendra Kumar Rungta Vs. Pawan Kumar Surekha and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT238; 2004(3)MPLJ412
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing order dated 19-3-2004 passed by Fourth Civil Judge Class-1, Katni in Civil Original Suit No. 3-A/2001 by which the defendant's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to in short 'the Code') has been rejected.2. The Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that in the case plaintiffs have closed their evidence and the proposed amendment amounts to amend pleadings extensively. The proposed amendment has been sought to delay the proceedings and is not necessary for the just decision of the case.3. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case. The petitioner is raising pleas which are necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. The suit is filed on the ground that the document in question is mortgage deed while there is no mortgage deed executed by ...
Smt. Jyoti JaIn Vs. Jinesh Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT471; 2004(4)MPLJ542
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Heard.2. Though this matter was listed for admission, Shri A.K. Jain, learned Counsel appeared for non-applicant and accepted notice on his behalf.3. Learned Counsel for both the sides requested that the matter may be finally disposed of. Prayer accepted. Heard finally.4. It is not disputed that the applicant Smt. Jyoti Jain had filed a petition in the year 2001 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'Act' against the non-applicant seeking decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned under Section 13 of the Act. The petition was filed in the Court of 9th Additional District Judge, Indore. Thereafter, vide order dated 27-8-2003 passed in M.C.C. No. 692/03 by this Court the petition was transferred from the Court of 9th Additional District Judge, Indore to the Family Court, Jabalpur and the same is pending.5. During the pendency of the said petition which was filed in the year 2001 the parties moved a petition under Section 1...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT106; 2004(4)MPLJ102
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol has referred this death reference under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), is heard along with Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2004 filed by appellant Ramesh Kumar against his conviction and order of sentence of death under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC) passed by learned Trial Judge vide impugned judgment dated 8th April, 2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 1999. The accused/appellant has also challenged his conviction under Sections 364 and 201, IPC.2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 5-1-1999 Amit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') went to market to purchase some articles of house-hold, but when he did not turn up a missing report was lodged at Police Chowki, Rajnagar. It is said that on 14-1-1999 in the dawn hours one Sindhi s/o Becrshah Kol went to discharge excreta nearby the Nala situated near crema...
Gajendra Shrivastava Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT142
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner, who appeared in High School Examination, 2003 and was awarded '0 mark' in Mathematics, has filed this petition for following directions :-'(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the answer-book of Mathematics of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.(ii) Suitable directions may kindly be issued to the respondent for making scrutiny/rechecking/proper valuation of the answer-book of mathematics of the petitioner.(iii) For which this Hon'ble Court further be pleased to pass any such order as deems fit under the circumstances of the case.(iv) To award cost of the petition.'2. This petition was filed on 28-8-2003 and notice was issued in this petition to the respondent on 15-9-2003. On behalf of the respondent, notice was accepted by Miss J.L. Iyer, who is Standing Counsel for respondent and reply was filed by the respondent on 9-12-2003.3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner who appeared in the High School Examinati...
Commissioner of Commercial Tax Vs. Indorama Synthetic (India) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST707(MP)
ORDER1. The decision rendered in this case shall govern disposal of other cases involving identical point though the issue is raised between different parties.These are all applications made under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) read with Section 70(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 by the State for calling reference on the question proposed by the applicant. The Tribunal by the impugned order declined to make a reference when sought by the State giving rise to making of this application by the applicant--State asking this court to direct the Tribunal to make a reference to this court as required under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994.2. We have gone through the entire controversy including the orders passed by the Tribunal in appeal and also the order passed by the Tribunal declining to make a reference ess...
Smt. Tara Bai Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4096; 2004(3)MPHT456; 2004(4)MPLJ95
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The petitioner, being the mother of one Rajendra Pasi, has knocked the door of this Court by filing a writ petition in the nature at habeas-corpus under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. In the writ petition it has been pleaded by the petitioner that Rajendra Pasi is her son who was illegally arrested by the police officers of the Police Station House, Ranjhi, on 1-11-2003 along with his two brothers namely Surendra Pasi and Santosh Pasi. According to the petitioner, said Rajendra Pasi was arrested in the following cases :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. No. Crime No. Offences under Sections---------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 566/2003 341, 294, 327, 506, 323 and 34 of IPC.2 567/2003 341, 294, 324, 506-latter part, 327 and 34, IPC3 568/2003 353, 332, 186, 294, 506-latter part and 34, IPC------------------------------------------------------------...
Aia Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004MP238; 2005(1)CTLJ450(MP)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has sought direction against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to reject the pre-qualifying bid of respondent No. 3 for supply of Inserted Grinding Rolls and High Chrome Bull Ring Segments of Milling Plant Super Performance (for short 'MPSP') system for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited make XRP 763 Bowl Mills (for short 'BHEL-make') of 200/ 210 MW units of (Unit No. 6 to 9), Satpura Thermal Power Station, Sarni during the period 2003-04 to 2006-07.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is in the business of manufacturing Hi-chrome Alloy Steel Castings, and process support for Thermal Power, Cement and Mining industries. The respondent-Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'MPSEB') floated a limited tender enquiry on 3rd November 2003 for supply of MPSP. This tender was floated in the nature of a 'Limited Tender Enquiry' and made only to (a) BHEL, (b) the respondent No. 3 Magotteaux industries Pvt. Ltd., (c) GE Power Se...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishnu Prasad Singhal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(MP)546; [2005]275ITR432(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. This is an application made under Section 256(2) of the IT Act by the IT Department (Revenue) against an order dt. 20th Nov., 1998, passed by Tribunal in case No. RA 107/108/Ind/1998 arising out of ITA Nos. 529 & 530/Ind/1993, whereby the application made by the applicant/petitioner, i.e., Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Act has been rejected holding that no referable question of law arises out the order of Tribunal.2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission.3. We concur with the finding of Tribunal when it was held that no referable question of law within the meaning of Section 256(1) of the Act is made out. We thus, also decline to call for the reference on the question proposed at the instance of Revenue. Let us see the facts.4. In substance, the question sought to be raised by the Revenue was in relation to imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Act on the assessee for two assessment years in question...
Shahdol Pipe Works and anr. Vs. Zila Laghu Udyog Kamgar Sangh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ355MP; 2004(4)MPHT80; 2004(4)MPLJ474
S.K. Pande, J.1. These appeals under Section 96, CPC are directed against the judgment-decree dated 17-8-94, passed by I ADJ, Shahdol in C.S. No. 11-A/89.2. Plaintiff Shahdol Pipe Works is a registered partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of reinforcement cement, concrete (RCC), hume pipes. Plaintiff M.K. Rathore is a truck owner and is engaged in the business of transporting goods and materials. Defendant Zila Laghu Udyog Kamgar Sangh is claimed to be a registered trade union, registered under the Trade Union Act. It is claimed that this union represents the employees working in hume pipe factory of plaintiff. Defendant Mani Lal Jain and others claimed to be the President, office bearers and members of the trade union Zila Laghu Udyog Kamgar Sangh. On a call by the defendant trade union, the workers went on strike. They collected at the main gate of the factory on 9-7-89 and obstructed the ingress of the persons in the factory premises who were ready and willing to come and do ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abeeson Hotels (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)263
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act filed by the Revenue (IT Department) against an order dt. 23rd Dec., 2003, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 586/Ind/1998.2. 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.3. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission.4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that this appeal has no merit. In Other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and hence, it merits dismissal in limine.5. The question in substance that arose before the taxing authorities was in regard to valuation of assessee's properties. It was found that there is some variation between the valuation made by the assessee and what is made by the DVO. So far as assessee's valuation was conce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »