Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Sardarbai and anr. Vs. Mathribai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT379; 2005(2)MPLJ313
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below dismissing their suit on the ground of res judicata.2. The present suit was filed by Ganpat, who died during the pendency of the suit and present appellants are his legal representatives. Ganpat filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect to suit property which is mentioned in the plaint. According to plaintiffs, Onkarji was not having any son and he was keeping love and affection with plaintiff Ganpat as such he took plaintiff Ganpat in adoption 45 years earlier to the date of filing of the suit. According to plaintiff Ganpat, after the death of his adopted father Onkarji, he performed all spiritual rites. After the death of Onkarji, the revenue authorities entered the name of Pyaribai, who is wife of Onkarji. After the death of Pyaribai the suit land has been recorded in the name of her daughter Mathribai. The plaintiff came forward ...
Babulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2095
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant - accused has filed the appeal against the judgment and order dated 9-11-1995 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 164/1992 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, of his conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 323 of IPC respectively for the imprisonment of life and rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution ease is that on 15-7-1992 in the evening at 6.00 p.m. at Bherugarh Dewas accused Babulal caught deceased Chhotelal and hit the knife blow on his head, cheek and the right leg. In the meantime the accused brought an iron rod and inflicted repeated blow on the head of Chhotelal. That on the same day at about. 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon Chhotelal has asked the Dinesh not to ease near his house and the quarrel has taken place in between accused Babulal and Chhotelal. That on account of the incident in the afternoon the accused has caused the injuries to the deceased by knife and iron rod. Laxmibai (PW-1), Sunil (PW-2), Dalchand (PW-...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Ramchandra and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2005MP217; 2005(2)MPLJ218
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dismissing their appeal by First Appellate Court.2. The plaintiffs who are respondents In this appeal filed suit for Injunction praying that a decree of perpetual Injunction be Issued against defendants appellants from Interfering In their possession with a further relief of injunction that they be restrained from auctioning the agricultural lands in question.3. In brief the suit of plaintiffs is that Shri Ram Mandir is entered in the revenue record as Bhumiswami and in the revenue record Laxman Das S/o Sukhram Das Balragi is entered as Pujarl and Manager. However, since beginning the possession on the suit land is of plaintiffs. Earlier their predecessors were possessing the suil land. The plaintiffs father passed away 20 years earlier to the date of filing of the suit (suit tiled on 6-8-1979). After the death of their father, they are possessing the suit land an...
Vimal Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(MP)397; [2005]279ITR100(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an income-tax reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) at the instance of the assessee under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in R. A. Nos. 59 and 60/Ind/1998 dated January 15, 2004, which arises out of an order dated February 12, 1998, passed by the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 706/Ind/1992 and I. T. A. No. 1000/Ind/1993 to answer the following questions of law said to arise out of the aforementioned appellate orders:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,000 as concealed income of the assessee?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in justifying the levy of penalty of Rs. 18,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1988-89 and it centres around a question as to whether the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) an...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indore Constructions (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(MP)217; [2005]279ITR545(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the IT Act by the CIT against an order dt. 29th Dec., 1998, in IT(SS)A No. 81/Ind/1996, for the asst. yr. 20th Sept., 1986, to 20th Nov., 1995.2. On 16th March, 2000, this appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission before the Division Bench of this Court (comprising R.D. Vyas, J. and Shambhoo Singh, J.) when following order was passed :'16.3.2000Shri Mohan Pathak, learned councel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Admit.Issue notice to the other side on payment of P.F. within a week.'3. Section 260A of the IT Act is akin to Section 100 of CPC. Sub-section (3) of Section 260A provides, rather makes it obligatory upon the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law for deciding the appeal. Sub-section (4) then provides that the appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated. Any appeal, whether under Section 100 of CPC or under Section 260A of the Act cannot be heard much less decided w...
Jasodabai and ors. Vs. Smt. Sewantibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2005MP199; 2005(2)MPHT439; 2005(2)MPLJ227
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This is defendants second appeal.2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that one Narain filed a suit against Mangilal who was the predecessors of defendants. That suit was registered as 97-B/68. In that suit Narain sought decree of money against Mangilal which was borrowed by him. That suit was decreed. For the realisation of the decretal amount, the suit land was attached and put to auction. On 12-7-1976 original plaintiff Narain being the highest bidder bought the land in auction sale for Rs. 6500/-. On 4-11-1976 a sale certificate was issued in favour of plaintiff in that regard and on 12-4-78 warrant of possession was issued and the possession was delivered to plaintiff on 16-4-1978. Thereafter, the name of original plaintiff Narain was also mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 19-12-1978. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that after having obtained possession through possession warrant on 16-4-1978, he started cultivating the land in question. On ...
Kantilal Prabhudas Patel Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(MP)351; [2005]277ITR504(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 December 2, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in I. T. A. No. IT/SS/79/Ind of 2002.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A of the Act ?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, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal which merits dismissal in limine.5. It is a search case in the premises of the assessee--a businessman. In this search operation, apart from other, a sum of Rs. 12,62,000 in cash was also seized. It is this seizure of cash which is the subject-matter of this appeal. The question was whether the assessee was able to explain its source and whether it is liable to be taxed in his hands as an ...
Vi Brij Fiscal Services P. Ltd. Vs. Primus Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC388; [2005]127CompCas395(MP); (2006)2CompLJ190(MP); [2005]64SCL192(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a company petition filed under Section 433 of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent-company. The winding up is sought essentially on the ground falling under Section 433(e) of the Act (wrongly mentioned in petition as Section 433(c)), i.e., inability to pay debt.2. In support of this averment, the petitioner has made following averment in para. 10 of the petition :'That the petitioner-company has served legal notices upon the respondent by registered A. D. yet the exercise has turned futile because though the respondent is admitting its debt, acknowledging the notices but has failed to repay the loan amount. Copy of the notices dated January 7, 2003, February 7, 2003, March 7, 2003, are annexed and marked as annexures P/7, P/8 and P/9 respectively.'3. So far as annexures P7 and P8 are concerned, though they are described as notices they cannot be regarded to be so as satisfying the requirement of Section 434 of the Companies Act. In other words...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinod Prakash Saxena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(MP)73
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by CIT under Section 260A of the IT Act, against an order dt. 26th Sept., 2000, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 12/Ind/1996 for the block asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 5th Sept., 1995.2. Heard Shri A.P. Patankar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri D.K. Chhabra, learned Counsel for respondent.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I do not find any merit in this appeal which deserves dismissal.4. This appeal only raises a question as to whether Tribunal was right in deleting an addition of Rs. 3,37,501 treating the same to be an income from salary of assessee for the block period in question. The Tribunal by impugned order has come to a conclusion by allowing the appeal of assessee in part by holding that so far as addition of Rs. 3,37,501 in the total income of assessee is concerned, the same is liable to be deleted because it is properly explained. It is against this deletion, the CIT has com...
Nissar Vs. M.P.S.R.T. Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1127]
N.K. Mody, J.1. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was in the service of M.P.S.R.T.C, and was working as Driver. Petitioner took leave from 12.3.1996 to 11.4.1996 on medical ground as he sustained injuries on his right leg, during the course of his employment. Due to unavoidable circumstances, petitioner extended his leave till 27.6.1996. Thereafter, he submitted his joining report. After holding an enquiry, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for a major misconduct on account of his absence from duties for more than ten days. After holding enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 26.9.1996. Order of dismissal was challenged before the learned Labour Court in Case No. 105/MP1R/97. Learned Labour Court set-aside the order of dismissal with a direction of stoppage of one increment and petitioner was reinstated without back wages vide order dated 23.4.1998. The order passed by the Labour Court was challenged in appeal by both tine parties unsuccessful...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »