Madhya Pradesh Court January 2005 Judgments
Dhiraj Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT20
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator by M.P. State Seed and Farm Development Corporation, Bhopal.2. An order of appointment (A-4) in anticipation of approval for creation of post to be granted by State of M.P. was issued appointing the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per month. Proposal (A-3) was sent on 5/6-3-93 to the State Govt., Department of Agriculture, it was proposed that one post of Asstt. Programmer and two posts of Data Entry Operator be created and post of Executive Engineer (Civil) was not necessary, it was proposed that additional burden would be Rs. 19,968/- per annum. State Govt. has rejected the prayer for creation of the post of Data Entry Operator as per order [R-2(a)], dated 24-3-98. It was proposed that some Lower Division Clerk should be trained to perform the work of Data Entry Operator and in case there is necessity of additional hand, the increase in the post of LDC be examined. Petitioner has submitted that an advertiseme...
Tag this Judgment!Atar Singh and ors. Vs. Jiledar Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2005MP157; 2005(2)MPHT266; 2005(2)MPLJ259
N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8-1-1997 passed by First Additional District Judge, Morena, in Civil Appeal No. 133-A/94, whereby the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge Class I, Ambah, District Morena, dated 16-9-1994 in C.S. No. 156- Aof 1989 has been set aside, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.2. The substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are :--(1) Whether the provisions of lease are applicable to agricultural lease ?(2) Whether under the provision of Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act, lease of agricultural land requires registration ?3. Short facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit fore declaration and permanent injunction alleging that the land bearing Survey No. 349, measuring 3 Bighas 1 Biswa, situated at Village Ikahara, Tehsil Ambah, District Morena (which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'suit property') is in occupation of the appellants. It was alleged th...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram Malviya Vs. Habib Shah and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT484
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J. 1. The appellant/claimant has filed the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the increase of the amount of Award dated 12-5-2004 in Claim Case No. 71/2001 passed by learned Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwaha, District West Nimar, whereby the amount of Rs. 15,400.00 was provided to the appellant carrying the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition.2. The case of the claimant is that on 6-5-1998 when the applicant was travelling in Mazda Vehicle No. MP-10/9129, the Truck No. MP-09/K-8907 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, hit his vehicle near the Bharat Dhaba and in the accident the applicant has received the injury in which his ribs were fractured. The case of the claimant is that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000.00 be provided to him from the respondent No. 1 and also jointly and severally from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who arc respectively the owner and the insurer of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Kothari Vs. Smt. Sheela Tiwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT104
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/defendant No. 1 has filed this miscellaneous appeal against the order dated 22-11-2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2004 by learned Additional District Judge, Dhar wherein the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2003 in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2003 was set aside and the case was remanded back for taking the documents on record and recording the evidence of the parties.2. The respondent No. 1 has filed the Civil Suit No. 39-A/2003 against the appellant defendant No. 1 for declaration of his title and also for the permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the grand father of the plaintiff was the Diwan of State of Dhar and the suit land bearing Survey No. 62 was the mafia land. That the suit land was given on rent on 31-12-1989 to Abbas Ali Bohra and plaintiff used to realize the rent from the tenant. That defendant has got his name mutated in the revenue record on the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Ballabhdas Rathi Vs. Smt. Gopal Krishna Goushala
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT401; 2005(2)MPLJ398
S.K. Pande, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 28-10-99, passed by Additional District Judge, Sohagpur in C.A. No. 10-A/96, reversing the judgment-decree dated 16-5-96, passed by Civil Judge Class I, Sohagpur in C.S. No. 30-A/91, defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.2. The appeal has been heard on the following substantial question of law:--'Whether the finding arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court that the evidence recorded after proceeding ex parte against the defendant/appellant could have been read against him by the Court even after setting aside ex parte order, is perverse and unsustainable in law ?'3. Defendant/appellant is a tenant of the plaintiff/respondent in the suit house on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month. Defendant/appellant remained in arrears with effect from 15-7-80 and did not pay in spite of service of notice of demand. Further, the suit house being old and dilapidated has become unsafe-unfit for human hab...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005ACJ1237
S.S. Jha and A.K. Gohil, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. It is further prayed that the insurance company be also made liable to pay the compensation. Cross-objection is also filed by the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 1, praying therein that the insurance company be held liable to pay the compensation.2. Claims Tribunal has held that it is not proved that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company.3. Much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent owner that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and in support of their contention appellant as well as respondent No. 1 have filed various documents along with an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. For deciding the question involved in the case, both the applications are allowed and the documents are taken on record. We have perused the documents filed by the appellant as well as owner, respondent No. 1. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Choudhary Builders (P.) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(MP)52; [2005]276ITR578(MP)
A.M. Sapre J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against an order dated August 30, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 475/Ind of 1995. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether the amount received by the assessee by sale of flats/ shops made during the year and the amount of unsold stock of flats/ shops should have been also considered when the Revenue considered the value of construction made during the year to the tune of Rs. 1,11,96,287 to the opening stock/work-in-progress and the amount indicated by the progress report to the tune of Rs. 2,70,21,070 ?2. Whether the assessment in that context made by the Revenue and the conclusion drawn by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and bad in law ?'2. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with K...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajmal Bapulal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(MP)241; [2008]303ITR222(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 30th April, 2004, passed by Tribunal in IT(SS)A 40/Ind/2002 and C.O. No. 13/Ind/2004.2. 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 prerequisite for admission of appeal.3. Heard Shri A.P. Patankar, learned Counsel for the appellant.4. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused 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 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 (sic) of certain deletion which were made by the AO in the course of blo...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rural Electrical Co-operative So ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: [2005]279ITR319(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated October 15, 1998, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in I. T. A. No. 271/Ind/ 94. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1) are not applicable in the instant case ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act levied upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer ?'2. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik learned Counsel for the Revenue. None for the assessee.3. In short, the question that arises for consideration...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Vs. Dr. Lallu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC172
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J.1. Arguments heard on the Misc. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 30.1.1995 in Claim Case No. 48/1994 passed by learned VIth Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain, wherein the appellant was ordered to pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- as in interim compensation to the respondent No. 1-claimant.2. The case of the claimant is that on 29.12.1993 when the minor daughter of the claimant Kumari Poonam was going on the road near the Roadways Depot, the non-applicant No. 1 while driving the Tempo No. MPU-6026 rashly and negligently, hit her resulting in her accidental death on the spot. That the non-applicant No. 2 was the owner and non-applicant No. 3 was the insurer of the offending Tempo.3. The case of the Insurance Company is that the Tempo was insured by the owner of the vehicle after hiding the fact of the accident and as such the policy of the Tempo was cancelled by the Insurance Company. That ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »