Madhya Pradesh Court February 2005 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.
P.S. Deo Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR101]
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 28-12-2001 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 269/1993.The essential facts that gave rise to filing of the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Tribunal are that the petitioner had worked in various posts, namely, Additional Treasury Accountant and Lecturer in M.P. Accounts Training School, Jabalpur and further assisted the Stamp Clerk of District Treasury, Jabalpur. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him along with ether officers and eventually he was compulsorily retired on 4-5-1986 by way of punishment, the said order was assailed in appeal and the appellate authority on 8-9-1989 vide Annexure-P/1 annulled the order of compulsory retirement and directed the period commencing 4-5-1986, the date, of compulsory retirement, till ...
Madan Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Shantibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT480
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J. 1. Applicants have filed the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-11-2003 passed in Second Appeal No. 514/2003 by the Single Judge of this Court whereby the appellant/defendants appeal was dismissed.2. The submission of the applicants is that the non-applicants had based their claim on the basis of the agreement to sale executed by the predecessor in title of the applicants. That the non-applicant plaintiffs were in possession of the agreement of sale and their possession can not only be adverse to the true owner as held in case of Achal Reddi v. Ramkrishna Reddiar, AIR 1990 SC Page 553. That the Court while deciding the second appeal has wrongly held that the applicant plaintiff has acquired the title on the basis of the possession and this finding is wrong as in fact the non-applicant had not got title to the said land on the basis of the adverse possession.3. Without going into the merits of the arguments of ...
Virendra Vs. Mahendra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC142; 2005(1)MPHT478
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J. 1. Appellant/claimant has filed the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the increase of the award dated 16-7-2004 in Claim Case No. 143/2003 passed by learned Additional Member MACT, Dhar where by the amount of Rs. 57,000/- carrying the interest @ 8% per annum was provided to the claimant.2. The case of the claimant is that on 2-11-2004 at about 8.30 A.M. when the claimant was going on his Kinetic Honda Scooter the Truck No. MP-09 KB/631 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 hit the Scooter and in the accident the claimant fell down and he has received the injury on his face and his three teeth were broken. That the report was lodged in the Police Station, Dhamnod. The charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No. 1 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharampuri. That on account of the loss of the teeth the claimant was incapable of taking the food and he has received the permanent disability. That the claimant has incurre...
Khemkaran Sanodiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ1905; [2005(106)FLR804]; 2005(2)MPHT270; 2005(3)MPLJ45
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J. 1. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 made an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation for the death of one Bishandayal Bandewar, alleging that he died in the course of employment under the petitioner. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation by order dated 7-10-2004, allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,54,160/-alongwith interest.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner on several grounds. The first ground is that Bishandayal Bandewar was not his employee. The second ground is that he was not given due opportunity to contest the claim. The third ground is that the compensation awarded is excessive and contrary to evidence. He, therefore, wants to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation by filing an appeal in this Court under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short). He states that the Third Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3...
Gopal Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: I(2005)DMC790
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant Gopal Singh has filed the appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against, the judgment and order dated 30.8.1995 in S.T. No. 75/ 93 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam of his conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 for the life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for the period of 2 years.2. The admitted facts of the case are that appellant accused Gopalsingh and Kamlabai were the parents of accused Shailendra Singh. That the marriage of accused Shailendra Singh was performed on 30.1.1992 with deceased Sumanbai. That it is also not in dispute that on 9.12.1992 at about 6 p.m. deceased Sumanbai has received the burn injuries in her matrimonial house and she was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Sailana and thereafter on the same date she died on account of the burn injuries. That the post-mortem of the deceased was performed on the next day and it ...
Bhawla @ Bhavsingh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT312
A.K. Awasthy, J. 1. Appellants/accused have filed the appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 18-1-1996 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 134/1994 by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone (West Nimar) of their conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC of the rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of fine, further simple imprisonment of 1 year and also under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that on 8-2-1994 at about 7.00 p.m. in Village Mamdiya in the feast at the house of Kalu, the villagers from the nearby villages were present and when accused Bhawla demanded more mutton, then on account of the refusal to provide him more mutton, he left the party. That after some time accused Bhawla @ Bhavsin...
Sonali Cables Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(186)ELT278(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal, filed by assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order dated 8-10-2004, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter for short Tribunal') in Appeal No. E/3723/2004-NB(C).2. Heard Shri Asudani, learned Counsel for the appellant.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant (assessee) and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that appeal has no merit and hence, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and hence, it must merit dismissal in limine.4. Indeed mere perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the same being based on cogent reasoning, it does not call for any interference. As a matter of fact, it is based on appellants own admission wherein it is admitted that appellants firm was manufacturing the goods under various brand names belonging to different traders. This fact was not di...
Deepak Chugh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: [2007]290ITR541(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated August 25, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1204/Ind of 1996.2. 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 P.M. Choudhary, 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, as is required to be made out under Section 260A ibid.5. A mere perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal rendered in the appeal would indicate that it is based on facts involving no substantial question of law as such. In other words, what is involv...
Devel Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT106; 2005(2)MPLJ4
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 44 in this petition have been admitted to R.D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain (fourth respondent) to M.B.B.S. Course during academic year 2003-2004. Each of them claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 4,28,000/-(towards fee, caution money and other charges) at the time of admission to the M.B.B.S. Course, to the fourth respondent College.2. The Committee for fixation of fee for professional Institutions has passed an order fixing the annual fee for admission to fourth respondent College as follows :--Description Fee per annumTuition Fee : Rs. 1,64,000/-Student Fund : Rs. 1,000/-Caution Money : Rs. 25,000/-Deposit for College(Refundable)Hostel Fees : Rs. 6,000/-Caution Money (Hostel) : Rs. 1,200/-(Refundable)The petitioners contend that the amount received in excess should be refunded to them. As it was not refunded, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to the fourth respondent not to charge fee in excess what has been f...
T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jadhav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR514]; (2005)IIILLJ829MP; 2005(2)MPLJ570
Rajendra Menon, J.1. Petitioners by Shri K.N. Gupta, senior advocate with Shri Girdhari Singh Chouhan, advocate. Respondents/employee by Shri B.P. Singh and Shri Alok Sharma, advocate. As common questions and orders identical in nature passed by the Industrial Court are challenged in both these petitions being W.P. Nos. 136/2005 and 137/2005, they are being disposed of by this common order. On the ground that services of respondent/employees are required at Indore and Rewa in view of the requisition Annexure-P/6 dated October 11, 2004 received in the matter, respondents/ employees were transferred to Rewa and Indore respectively by orders of transfer Annexure-P/2 dated October 26, 2004. Challenging the aforesaid transfer orders to be illegal on the grounds of mala fide, contrary to their service condition and being by expressing certain personal difficulties in the matter pertaining the education of their children being adversely affected by transferring them in mids of the academic se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »