Madhya Pradesh Court January 2006 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.
Mukesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT344
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. This order shall govern disposal of Cri. Revision Nos. 825 of 05; 838 of 05 and 912 of 05, as they arise out of the common impugned judgment dated 12-8-05, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 79 of 05, 95 of 05 and 94 of 05 which have been preferred by the applicant accused against the finding of conviction and sentences holding them guilty for commission of offence under Section 380 of the Penal Code recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class Sonkatch in Cri. Case No. 744 of 05 on 16-4-2005 and sentenced each of the applicant to undergo R.I for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed all the three appeals and maintained the conviction and sentence.2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 16-7-03 complainant Jinendra Jain Pujari of Pushpagiri Temple lodged a complaint to the Police Station Sonkatch at 5.30 p.m. which was registered as Crime No. 515 of 03 that the complainant is a Pujari of the Pushpagiri Temple...
Steel Authority of India Limited and anr. Vs. Authority Under the Mini ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR774]; 2006(3)MPLJ417
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated December 2, 2003 passed in Claim Case No. MWA-169/1998 by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 whereby he has allowed the claim of Rupees 45,16,84,280.00 along with five times compensation amounting to Rupees 225,84,21,400.00; total amount Rupees 271,01,05,680.00 in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 to 2042 who are being represented through Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union, Koteshwar Limestone Mine, Gairtalai, Katni.2. Petitioner, Steel Authority of India Limited, is a Government Company and Public Sector Enterprise. It is engaged in running steel plants at various places. For manufacturing of steel, bulk quantity of limestone is required in the plants as raw material. It has, therefore, obtained the lease of captive mines of, limestones in different places including one known as Koteshwar Limestone Mine in District Katni. For the purposes of mining and other allied works, petitioner has been engaging lice...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. K.K. Sharma and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR1126]; 2006(2)MPHT142; 2006(2)MPLJ267
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition State of M.P. has assailed the order passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 23-6-2000 in Original Application No. 1372/98.2. Briefly stated the facts are that Shri K.K. Sharma, the respondent was in the service of Forest Department of State of M.P. He was initially appointed as a Range Officer. Ultimately he came to be promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest as per order dated 22nd February, 1994 (A-3) with retrospective effect from 7-10-1983, which order was passed in pursuance to holding of a review D.P.C. as per the directions issued by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 399/91. He was found fit and suitable for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Consequently his seniority was fixed over his junior and he was given consequential benefits w.e.f. 7-10-1983. However, back wages were not given. Therefore respondent filed another O.A. No. 792/95 for non-compliance of the order and for giving consequential ...
Cit Vs. Bapuros Mahase and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(MP)498
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.This decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeal being IT Appeal No. 33 of 2000 because both the appeals involve identical points and they relate to same assessee except the difference being that both arise out of the different assessment years.2. This is an appeal filed by Commissioner under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, against an order dated 22-3-2000 passed by Tribunal in ITA Nos. 404/lnd/1995 and 575/Ind/1995. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act can be levied as the assessee had surrendered additional income in good faith with a view to buy peace of mind even though additional income was treated as concealed income by the department, on the basis of the documents seized during search conducted unde...
Sanjay Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(MP)275; [2006]154TAXMAN101(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.This is an appeal filed by the revenue (income tax department) (sic-assessee) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, against the order, dated 28-4-2005, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 397/Ind/2001.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law out of the impugned order of the Tribunal or in other words, whether two questions proposed by the appellant involve any substantial questions so as to admit the appeal. It is not in dispute that the pre-requisite of admitting any appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act is to find out involvement of substantial question of law.3. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Act and hence, it merits dismissal ...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Padam Chand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ397
S.S. Jha, J.1. Petitioner State has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior in O.A. No. 1225/1998.2. Respondents are the employees of the State Government. Their services were terminated. They approached the Tribunal. Tribunal vide order dated July 29, 1995 set aside the order of termination on the ground that services have been terminated without issuing show cause notice and respondents were given liberty to initiate action in accordance with law. Case went up to the Apex Court and leave to file appeal was not granted and Special leave petition was dismissed by the Apex Court. Notices to show cause were issued to the respondents under Rule 10(8) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and services of respondents were terminated vide order dated August 25, 1998. It has been argued that major penalty has been imposed without following the procedure laid down in Rule 14 whereas, petitioner-...
Laxman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT503
S.L. Jain, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of this appeal as well as F.A. 354/96 (The State of M.P. v. Dharmendra Singh and Ors.) and F.A. No. 590/96 (The State of M.P. v. Laxman Singh). As all these three appeals arise out of a common order passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 146/94 and 147/94 and all were heard together, they are being decided analogously by this common judgment.2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals lie in a narrow compass :--The State Government for the purposes of construction of Bhanpur Sub Miner Canal proposed to acquire the lands situated in Village Bhanpur, Tehsil Babai, Distt. Hoshangabad which included Khasra No. 143/1, total area 3.7 acres and was lateron sub divided and new Khasra No. 143/5 total area of .52 acres belonging to Laxman who is the appellant in First Appeal No. 346/96 and respondent in First Appeal No. 590/96 and 3 acres of land of Khasra No. 146/6 belonging to ...
Mrs. Anita Sharma and anr. Vs. Ramjilal Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: I(2006)DMC786; 2006(2)MPHT99; 2006(3)MPLJ96
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 19-5-04, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi in Cri. Revision No. 203 of 02, whereby the order dated 31-10-02 passed in Cri.M.J.C. No. 57/02 by J.M.F.C. Kukshi in respect of grant of interim alimony to the wife applicant has been set aside and quashed, but maintained the order with regard to grant of maintenance to her son @ Rs. 750/- per month during pendency of the application filed by applicant wife under Section 125 of Cr.PC.2. The applicant wife has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.PC before the Trial Magistrate. During pendency of this application a prayer for grant of interim alimony was made by the applicant. The Trial Magistrate has granted Rs. 1,000/- per month as interim alimony to the applicant wife and Rs. 750/- for her son applicant No. 2.3. The non-applicant husband has filed a revision against the said order. In revision the learned Addl. Sessions Judge modified the order...
Pooran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT498
Rakesh Saksena, J.1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 14-10-1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1991 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, Convicting him for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. In brief, prosecution story is that Kiran (deceased) was the wife of appellant. Kiran's sister Kusum used to live with her husband Sardar Nath in Village Mehar. Since about one month appellant and Kiran had come to Village Mehar in search of labour work and were residing in the house of Kusum. On 7-4-1991, at 1.00 P.M., when Kiran was lying on a horizontally placed cernent pillar, in front of the house of Kusum, appellant brought an axe from Subbi and assaulted Kiran on her neck with that axe as a result of which she suffered deep injury on the neck. Child Bhag Bai (P.W. 1), sister-in-law of Kusum, saw the incident and informed her mother Ramrani. Ramrani came at the spot and f...
Kamal Kishore and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2006MP167; 2006(2)MPHT45; 2007(1)MPLJ181
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. In this petition filed in public interest, petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in permitting non-forest activities in the forest area. Though this petition related to a limited area to be developed by the Special Axea Development Authority (SADA) respondent No. 6 and has challenged the development plan of the said Authority in which forest area is being utilised for non-forest activities for construction of Counter Magnet City and permission of mining in the forest area, during the course of arguments, this being a public interest litigation, the Court has enquired about the non-forest activities in the district of Gwalior and issuance of mining lease to various persons on the forest land. In view of the contradictory reply by the Department of Forest and Revenue, a committee was constituted which was headed by Justice R.B. Dixit, a retired Judge of this Court, Committee submitted its report. State was not satisfied with the said report and furth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »