Madhya Pradesh Court March 2005 Judgments
Harish @ Bujharat and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT41; 2005(3)MPLJ464
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The three appellants, above-named, assail the judgment dated 26-11-1996 passed by the learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in S.T. No. 838/92 by which the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC while appellant No. 3, under Section 302 thereof and, each has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The case relates to an incident in which deceased Dalthamman Singh, husband of acquitted accused Bimla Singh, was murdered on account of his wife's illegitimate intimacy with accused Raju @ Govind @ Satish s/o Mulayam Rajak, who was living in the house across. The prosecution alleged that the said co- accused, wife of the deceased, had eloped with the appellant No. 3 Raju on 2-3 occasions and had spent few days outside despite strong objection and r...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR366]; 2005(3)MPHT431; 2005(3)MPLJ557
ORDERRajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the order of punishment dated 27-5-2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 27-5-2000 imposing penalty of withholding 20% of the pension, so also aggrieved by non-payment of his gratuity, petitioner has filed this petition.2. In the year 1993, petitioner was holding the post of Dy. Collector in Distt. Teekamgarh. Commissioner, Sagar issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 27-8-93 vide Annexure A-2 alongwith statement of allegations An-nexurc A-3 with regard to misconduct committed by the petitioner in the matter of issuing 32 arms license to various persons in a unauthorised manner without proper procedure being followed in the matter of seeking a report from the police authorities, getting proper character verification done and without sanction of the competent authority and in contravention to Govt. circulars and rules. Petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid, Departmental Enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the report of th...
Tag this Judgment!Than Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: AIR2005MP170; 2005(2)MPLJ353
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The present reference has arisen in a different factual matrix inasmuch as certain provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act') that were incorporated by way of amendment into the aforesaid statute faced assail pertaining to their constitutional validity in the case of Jankidas Bairagi and Anr. v. State of M.P., 2001(2) M.P.H.T. 229, wherein a Division Bench declared the provisions under attack as constitutionally valid and dismissed the writ petition in limine, and thereafter when the present writ petition was filed challenging the enactment the same Division Bench issued notice and when the matter was placed for final hearing the Bench hearing the matter recorded a finding that the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had a sanguine grievance with regard to a singular provision and had no cavil in respect of any other provision and accordingly thought it condign to recommend the matter to be referr...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderlal Saraf and ors. Vs. Subhas Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: AIR2006MP35; 2005(3)MPLJ73
A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This first appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs assailing judgment and decree of trial Court dismissing their suit.2. A suit for realization of Rs. 51,000/-has been filed by plaintiffs with a further prayer to pass a decree of interest @ 5% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization.3. In brief the suit of plaintiffs is that they are real brothers and are carrying on the business in the sale and purchase of silver and its ornaments. Plaintiff No. 1 Sunderlal also used to do his own independent business as distinct from that of the firm. In order to meet his cash requirements and to streamline his individual business, he borrowed money from defendant Dharamchand on the security of silver. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has been lending money in Shahdol in regular course of his business. Plaintiff No. 1 Sunderlal borrowed from defendant on different dates various amounts of money, the details of which are mentioned in para 3 of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C.L. Khatri
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(MP)44; [2006]282ITR97(MP)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), is against the order dt. 21st May, 2001 of the Tribunal, Indore Bench, in ITA No. (SS) 63/Ind/1997 for the block asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1997-1998 (that is for the period 1st April, 1986 to 18th Oct., 1996).2. In the appeal memo, the Revenue has raised as many as seven substantial questions of law for consideration. However, having regard to the fact that in regard to matters covered by questions (iii) and (vii), the Tribunal had set aside the issue and sent it back to the AO and the AO by order dt. 28th March, 2002, has already decided afresh questions (iii) and (vii), it was submitted that only question Nos. (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) which are extracted below, remain for consideration :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the matters disclosed in the returns filed for the relevant assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT353
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 27th June, 1994 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 298/93 by which he has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and, respectively, sentenced thereunder to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The appellant is the husband of deceased Sarojrani who was tied in the nuptial bondage with him in the summers of 1989. This nuptial was blessed with a son in the year 1991 who was, at the time of the incident, about 3 years old. At the time of the incident, Sarojrani was in the house in which the accused lived alongwith other members including P.W. 1 Jiwanlal, though bed- room of the accused was separate.3. According to the case of the prosecution, accused was unemployed and frustrated by his unemployment, his wife Sarojrani (deceased) used to pressurize him to allow her to go to her parent...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsingh and anr. Vs. Shivaji Rao and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ968
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging award dated 12.3.1997, passed by the Second Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (for short, 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 46 of 1993.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants-claimants are the parents of deceased Guddi who was 22 years of age at the time of accident. On 5.6.1993 she was travelling in a Matador bearing No. MP 08-2035. She was going from Badar-was to her house. When Matador reached the village Chitara on the Agra-Bombay Road, a truck bearing No. MBW 1418 came from the opposite side and dashed against the said Matador. Matador tumbled due to the impact of the dash and Guddi died in the accident. Guddi was the wife of Jagdish, respondent No. 7, but she was residing separately from Jagdish. She was residing with her parents. It is also alleged that Jagdish, respondent No. 7, was living separately with some other lady whom he has married. It is, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR710]
N.K. Mody, J.1. Petitioner by Mr. T.N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Hemlata Gupta, Advocate.Respondents by Mr. S. Phargava, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Ritu Bhargava, Adovate.This order shall govern the disposal of W.P. Nos. 402/2003, 403/2003, 104/2003, 439/2003, 440/2003, 468/2003, 801/203, 802/2003, 1293/2003, 1294/2003 and 1295/2003.2. Facts of the case are that respondents in all the cases were appointed to different-different dates in the year of 1988, 1989, 1991, 1995 and also 1997.Services of respondents were regularised on 16.9.1998, 24.12.1998, 15.1.1999, 10.12.1996, 3.4.1999 and 4.1.1999, respectively.3. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on 21.10.1999 to the effect that why regularisation of the respondents should not be cancelled. Notices were duly replied. Thereafter, the services of the respondents were discontinued vide orders dated 14.7.2000, 21.7.2000, 27.7.2000, 24.5.2001, 26.5.2001, 21.5.2001, 2.6.2001, 6.6.2001, 31.5.2001. The order of termination w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Shivaji Rao and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC550
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging ward dated 12.3.1997, passed by the Second Additional Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (for short, the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim case No. 46/1993.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants are the parents of deceased Guddi who was 22 years of age at the time of accident. On 5.6.1993 she was travelling in a Matador bearing No. MP/08 2035. She was going from Badarwas to her house. When the Matador reached village Chitara on the Agra-Bombay Road, a tractor bearing No. MBW 1418 came from the opposite side and dashed against the Matador. The Matador tumbled due to the impact of the dash and Guddi died in the accident. Guddi was the wife of respondent No. 7 Jagdish but she was residing Separately from Jagdish. She was residing with her parents. It is also alleged that respondent No. 7 Jagdish was living separately with some other lady whom he has married. It is, however, ad...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Bank of Indore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(MP)153
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.This is an appeal filed by CIT (Revenue) under Section 260A of IT Act against an order dt. 13th July, 2001, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 502/Ind/1999 for asst. yr. 1994-95. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that if the full scope of Section 36(1)(vii) is given, the purpose of Clause (viia) of Section 36(1) shall be defeated ?'2. The assessee (respondent herein) is a scheduled bank as defined under Section 36(1)(viia), Explanation (ii) of the IT Act. The assessee has several rural branches as defined in Explanation (ia) ibid.3. For the asst. yr. 1994-95, the question arose before AO as to whether assessee is entitled to claim benefit of Section 36(1)(vii) and (viia) and if so, to what extent or how much In fact, so far applicability and/or entitlement of benefit and consequent deduction under aforementioned two sect...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »