Madhya Pradesh Court February 2005 Judgments
Hemraj Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC462; 2005(2)MPHT196; 2005(2)MPLJ502
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. Smt. Kamalti Bai w/o Hemraj Mehra R/o Bhuyari, at present R/o Multai, District Betul is present in person. They are identified by the Counsel of the applicant.2. It is apparent from the judgment of the Courts below that the present applicant was found guilty and convicted under Sections 323 and 498A of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence three months' R.I. on first count while one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 100/- on second count. It is also not disputed that this prosecution was initiated at the instance of wife of the applicant (Smt. Kamalti Bai), who is present before this Court.3. I.A. No. 1833/2004, this is a joint application filed under Section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code by the applicant and complainant alongwith their affidavits.4. After perusing the averments made in this application the same are verified from the parties and as per their statements they are residing together since last two years and enjoying married life happily. It appears...
Tag this Judgment!Bashir Vs. Smt. HussaIn Bano
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT390; 2005(2)MPLJ230
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. This is the non-applicant/petitioner revision filed under Section 23E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order of eviction dated 10-7-2003 passed by the Rent Control Authority (hereinafter called as 'Authority') on an application filed by the applicant/respondent/landlady.2. The landlady submitted before the Authority that suit house No. 8/2, Kadwghat, Indore was rented out to the petitioner on a monthly of Rs. 325, consisting of five rooms, two on first floor, 3 on ground floor, needed for herself and her family members, son Mohammad Iqbal and grandsons Chand Mohammad, Zia-ulhasan, grand daughter Shagufta Bano. She was residing in a small room at Kadwghat and her family members in a rented premises. Her two grand sons and grand daughter were school going children. She was old lady aged about 75 years, wanted to live with her family members in her own suit house. Her husband was died, earlier she filed civil suit for evi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(MP)235; [2006]283ITR162(MP)
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This reference is by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), in pursuance of the order of this Court dt. 19th Jan., 1998 in IT Ref. No. 107/1997 relating to asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to hold that the rental income should be assessed as income from business in place of income from house property assessed by the AO ?'2. The respondent/assessee is a company which was carrying on bidi manufacturing business at the relevant time. It acquired 58 properties for its bidi business consisting of factory building, godowns, officer/staff quarters, etc. The properties were all being used for the purpose of its business. However, due to labour problems and other circumstances, assessee had to temporarily reduce its activities and consequently let out some of the properties, which were ...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Vs. Kailash Narayan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC627; 2006ACJ1070; 2005(2)MPLJ298
S.K. Gangele, J. 1. This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 8.5.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 18 of 1998. Appellant-claimant, a girl aged 14 years, met with an accident on 9.12.1998 when a Fiat car No. MP 045-1034 dashed her when she was going to school. Her left leg was broken and she also sustained injuries in head. Her life has been ruined due to accident, left leg was amputated below knee, a rod was inserted in her right leg too. 2. On her application for claim of compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh (Biaora), M.P. (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') the Claims Tribunal held that car was driven rashly and negligently and driver, owner and insurance company were liable to pay compensation. 3. On the basis of evidence of applicant-appellant herself, witness No. 1, her father Abrar Hussain, witness No. 2 and Dr. A.K. Mulla, witness No. 3, a surgeon posted at District H...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Vs. Swarna Kaur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ2578
S.K. Gangele, J.1. Appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal against the award dated 2.8.2000, passed in Claim Case No. 157 of 1999. Claimant-appellant has submitted before the Tribunal in his application that he has sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 14.5.1996, when he was coming to Ujjain from Indore in his car and it was dashed by a truck No. MP 09-KA 3862 near the village Baroli driven rashly and negligently by the driver.2. He further submitted that he received injuries on his head and urethra. Dr. N.H. Sarda was examined before the Tribunal as witness No. 1. He deposed that there were strictures in urethra of the appellant (Rohit) may be damaged and it causes repeated infection. His urine tube was congested due to the injuries in urethra. There was 54 per cent permanent disability and the other doctor Vasant Vale who was a Neurosurgeon also examined as witness No. 8. He deposed that Rohit was admitted in his hospital in an unconscious condition. In C.T. scan ther...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhashchandra Jha Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: [2007]291ITR335(MP)
1. This is a reference made at the instance of assessee by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in R.A. No. 97 to 111/ Ind./87 which arises out of W.T.A. Nos. 129 to 133/Ind./87 to answer the following question of law said to arise out of the aforementioned order of the Appellate Tribunal:Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the property inherited as individual was not thrown into the common stock of the family before December 31, 1969, and is taxable as separate property and not as of HUF is against the weight of the evidential material and is, thus, perverse and vitiated and results in levy of tax in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India ?2. Heard Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the assessee and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Miss V. Mandlik, learned Counsel for the Revenue.3. At the outset, both learned Counsel for the assessee as also for the Revenue brought to our notice a decision rendered by the Supreme Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Vs. Swarna Kaur and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: II(2007)ACC689
S.K. Gangele, J.1. Appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal against the award dated 2.8.2000, passed in Claim Case No. 157 of 1999. Claimant-appellant has submitted before the Tribunal in his application that he has sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 14.5.1996, when he was coming to Ujjain from Indore in his car and it was dashed by a truck No. MP 09-KA 3862 near the village Baroli driven rashly and negligently by the driver.2. He further submitted that he received injuries on his head and urethra. Dr. N.H. Sarda was examined before the Tribunal as witness No. 1. He deposed that there were strictures in urethra of the appellant (Rohit) and it causes repeated infection. His urine tube was congested due to the injuries in urethra. There was 54 per cent permanent disability and the other doctor Vasant Vale who was a Neurosurgeon also examined as witness No. 8. He deposed that Rohit was admitted in his hospital in an unconscious condition. In C.T. scan there was swelling ...
Tag this Judgment!Waheed Khan Vs. Gyani Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2005MP232; 2005(3)MPHT91; 2005(3)MPLJ213
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenging the order (Annexure P-1) dated 23-3-2004 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge Sironj in Civil Appeal No. 36/03 setting aside the order of injunction granted to the petitioner by the learned Civil Judge Class I, Lateri Distt. Vidisha on 6-9-03 vide Annexure P-2, petitioner has filed this petition.2. Petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and injunction with regard to suit land consisting of Survey No. 170 area 3.592 hectare. The Survey Number has been further changed to Survey Nos. 170/1 and 170/2. Initially, a patta was granted on 18-8-1986 in the name of defendant No. 1 Pancha who has been recorded as Bhoomiswami. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the land allotted to Pancha, petitioner had purchased 1.012 hectare and is in possession of the said land with the knowledge of all concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner and Pancha are in possession of the land since more than 32 years but Pancha has ille...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Prasanna Tiwari Vs. Smt. Ashima and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT192
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 30-10-2004 passed by the Family Court, Rewa in Case No. 1/2004 by which the Family Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC').2. Before the Family Court, an application under Section 125, Cr.PC has been filed by the respondents for maintenance. In the said proceedings, the respondents filed their affidavit in evidence and petitioner has been directed to cross-examine on the affidavit. At this stage, petitioner raised an objection in writing that in the proceedings, evidence can not be taken on affidavit, but the respondent should be examined in the Court in the presence of petitioner or his Counsel. Family Court relying on Section 10(3) of the Family Court Act found that the Family Court is having jurisdiction to adopt its own procedure for recording evidence and relying on provisions of Code of Civil Procedure held ...
Tag this Judgment!H.R. Manhar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4759; 2005(4)MPLJ22
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. U.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri U.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants.2. Shri Aseem Dixit. Govt. Advocate for the respondents.3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard finally.4. The contention of the learned senior counsel is that while delivering the judgment on 18-8-1999 the learned trial Judge passed certain adverse remarks against the present applicants in para 16 of the judgment. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel that applicant No. 1 H. R. Manhar is serving on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) and applicant No. 2 F. J. Tiggu is serving on the post of Sub-Inspector. Learned senior counsel by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Babu Chakraborty, AIR 2004 SC 4324 : 2004 Cri LJ 4858, has submitted that strictures against the police officers who were discharging their official duties and if while doing so the officers violated certa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »