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.
Hemant Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT398
ORDERAshok Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Learned Trial Court has summoned some witnesses under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Trial Court has not committed any error much less the jurisdictional error or any irregularity much less any material irregularity in summoning the witnesses. Under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code, Court has power to call any witness if his evidence appears it to be essential to the just decision of the case.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the witness has been called on a belated stage and the case is pending for a long time, therefore, the order of summoning the witnesses be quashed.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant can not be accepted as the Court can summon any witness or witnesses under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure at any stage of the trial before the judgment is delivered. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court can not be said to be illegal or irregular. The case is pending for ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi Shukla (No. 2)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: [2008]296ITR737(MP)
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), relates to the assessment year 1992-93. The appeal was admitted on the following two questions of law raised by the Revenue:1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the addition of Rs. 4,056 cannot be made in the income of the assessee on account of unexplained deposits in the savings bank account No.-13272 in the State Bank of India, Hamidiya Road, Bhopal, held by the assessee jointly with Smt. Kashibai even though Smt. Kashibai did not sign the account opening form nor operated the bank account at all?2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the addition of Rs. 2,56,102 cannot be made to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment in purchase of US dollars 10,000 even though the entries in the diary marked as document No. 1-2 seized during the course of search at t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: [2008]296ITR180(MP)
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') relating to the assessment year 1987-88 filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, dated November 15, 2003, in I.T.A. No. 719/Ind/1997 has been admitted on the ground that the following question of law arises for consideration:Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the addition of Rs. 1,32,442 cannot be made in the income of the assessee on account of unexplained deposits in the savings bank account No. 13272 in the State Bank of India, Hamidiya Road, Bhopal, held by the assessee jointly with Smt. Kashi Bai even though Smt. Kashi Bai did not sign the account opening form nor she operated this bank account at all?2. The assessee did not maintain accounts nor had any record of day to day receipts and expenses. After a search, the Revenue reopened the completed assessment and sought details of sources of ...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanhaiyalal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC36; 2005(4)MPHT98
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. The appellant/State has filed the appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 28th February, 1997 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 271/1995 by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, of the acquittal of the accused respondents for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C.2. It is not in dispute that accused Kanhaiyalal is the father of accused Rajendra @ Rajoo and accused Rameshchandra, and accused Mangibai is his wife. That accused Kalabai is the wife of accused Rameshchandra. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased Chandabai was performed with accused Rajendra @ Rajoo in the year 1988. That Chandabai has died on account of the burns received by her in her matrimonial house on 2.6.1995 at about 6.00 a.m. while she was preparing the tea on the stove of the kerosene oil.3. The prosecution case is that at the time of the marriage of Chandabai, her parents have given the dowry....
Viresh Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ384MP; 2005(3)MPHT229; 2005(4)MPLJ280
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. When the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer Grade-II in Coach Repair Work Shop, Bhopal, Central Railway, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 11-3-2000. The charge was that on 19-2-2000 at about 11 A.M. he assaulted the Private Security Supervisor (R.K. Chandel) who was on duty, thereby causing grievous injuries. An enquiry was held. On behalf of the Disciplinary Authority five witnesses were examined, namely, Udayaveer Singh Badhoria, Pankaj Shrivastava, Anupam Shrivastava, R.K. Jaiswal and Sulekh Yadav. The said witnesses were permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to let in his evidence. He examined two witnesses, but did not choose to give evidence himself. Therefore, on 20-1-2001, the Inquiry Officer granted ten days time to the petitioner to file his defence brief explaining his stand. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his defence brief. After considering the evidence and the defence brief, t...
Ashok Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC77; 2005(2)MPLJ521
S.K. Gangele, J.1. One of the defendants filed the present appeal against the order dated 14.9.2004 passed by the IInd A.D.J., Indore in M.J.C. No. 46/2002, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.10.1996 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 47-A/1996.2. The respondent No. 1 Bank of India (hereinafter called as the Bank) filed a suit against the appellant, his brother and two other defendants for recovery of money of Rs. 5,44,342,12 with 22.5% interest from the date of filing of the suit up to execution of the decree. The Bank pleaded that it granted a cash credit (hypothecation) loan to a proprietary firm of Rs. 2,40,000 and gave initial advance of Rs. 30,000 on 8.7.1983. The appellant was one of the guarantors of the loan and mortgaged his property, a house in favour of the Bank on 4.6.1987. The Bank in para 9 of the plant under the head 'plaintiff's claim' submitted that o...
Rekha Vs. State and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR712]
N.K. Mody, J.1. The prayer in the petition is that the order Annexure-P-1, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Aganwadi Worker be quashed.The facts of the case that the petitioner after due selection was appointed as Aganwadi Worker vide order dated 26.6.2001 by Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner was given the training for the period of 48 days. Petitioner worked from 2.7.2001 to 21.5.2002 as Aganwadi Worker. Vide order dated 21.5.2002 the services of the petitioner were discontinued on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aganwadi Worker was not in accordance with rules. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing order Annexure-P-1 dated 21.5.2002 neither show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided. Further submission of Counsel for the petitioner is that in the order Annexure-P-1 it is not shown that how the appointment of the petitioner is ...
Kunwar Dilip Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR258]
Rajendra Menon, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1089/2003 and Writ Petition No. 5314/2003 are being disposed of by this common order as both these petitions are filed by one Shri Kunwar Dilip Singh challenging the charge-sheet issued to him and the order of termination in pursuance to the charge-sheet under challenge.2. W.P. No. 5510/2004 was initially filed by the petitioner before the State Administrative Tribunal and on abolition of the Tribunal, the same stands transferred to this Court. In this petition, petitioner has challenged the letter dated 1-2-1999 Annexure P-1 and the charge-sheet dated 6-1-1996 Annexure P-2 issued to him and the prayer made is to quash the charge-sheet and the departmental enquiry initiated against him. During the pendency of this petition departmental enquiry continued and culminated in passing an order of punishment dated 27-3-2003 filed as Annexure P-1 in W.P. No. 1089/2003. The enquiry proceedings and the final order of punishment are challenged in WP No. 1089...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›