Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Sushil Ranjan Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ20
Deepak Verma, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC 1973, primarily filed to challenge the remarks made by learned trial court in his judgment dated 28.2.2006 in Special Case No. 33/2005 presided over by Special Judge, Rewa and for quashment of the same.2. Certain facts material for deciding the said petition are mentioned herein below:Accused Jai Pratap Dubey was charged and prosecuted for commission of offences under Sections 294, 506B and 302 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 'Act') in the trial court, on the ground that on 20.7.2005 he had caused murder of Chhotelal Khatik; who belonged to Scheduled Caste Category, after having used abusive language against him.3. Vide the impugned judgment, accused jai Pratap Dubey has been (Sic)4. Applicatioin No. 1 was posted as SDO(P) in Police Station Dabhoum, Rewa on the relevant date. Application No. 2 was working as T.I at Police...
Smt. Shail Shrivastava and Two ors. Vs. Shri Harish Chauksi and Five o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ628
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 8-2-2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 182/02 insofar as it declines to grant compensation as claimed by the appellants under Section 166 of the said Act.2. The said claim was filed in respect of the death of Mahesh Chandra Shrivastava, husband of appellant No. 1 Smt. Shall and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Anurag and Aditya and a sum of Rs. 75,00,0007- was claimed as compensation.3. Mahesh Chandra Shrivastava was a Professor in G.S.I.T.S. Engineering College, Indore. His date of birth was 15-8-1947. It was not disputed that on the date of incident, a tanker bearing registration No. NL-01/A-4705 was parked on the road, as there was some fault. It was also not disputed that as a result of collision with the said tanker and vehicle Toyota bearing registration No. MH-04/AY-7595, a case under Section 304A of the IPC was launched against respondent...
Rajkumar Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR231(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. With the consent of parties the petition is heard finally.2. This is a petition by the assessee under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In this petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the legality and validity of the notice dated March 30, 2005, issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Annex. C/1).3. This notice is sought to be impugned by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that it is barred by limitation as provided under Section 149(1)(a) or (b) ibid. According to the petitioner, though notice is dated March 30, 2005, but the same was issued by the Department actually on April 5, 2005 and, therefore, it contravenes the requirement of Section 149 ibid. It is thus barred by limitation for making any reassessment.4. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. They are served and represented.5. Heard Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior Counsel with Miss ...
Cit Vs. Dandh Secheron Electrodes Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(MP)164
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.This is an appeal filed by Revenue (CIT) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dt. 27-11-2002, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 130/Ind/1997. 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 is right in law and fact, in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ?'2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri Vijay Asudani, learned counsel for the assessee.3. The dispute in this appeal essentially relates to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 1993-94. The AO imposed the penalty by taking recourse to the provisions of section 271(1)(c) ibid on the assessee during the assessment year in question. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) and...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gom Industries Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: [2008]299ITR42(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) under Section 260A of the IT Act, against the order dt. 27th May, 2003, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 42/Ind/2000. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,64,851 on account of disallowance of interest, especially when the interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purpose ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,60,848 on account of legal and professional expenses for services relating to leasing of gas cylinder, especially when the assessee prima facie admitted this transaction to be the only paper transaction and did not claim depreciation and also did not offer any lease rent in respect of leasing of gas cylinder ?2. In shor...
Kanchan Saxena S/O Shri R.S. Saxena Vs. the State of M.P. Through the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ312
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. (S) No. 13439/2004 (Ashutosh Shukla v. State of M.P. and Anr.), W.P. (S) No. 13551/2004 (Prabendra Kumar Singh v. State of M.P. and Anr.) and W.P. (S) No. 407/2005 (Vivek Saxena v. State of M.P. and Anr.) since the point involved in all these writ petitions is the same. 2. M.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'PSC') issued an advertisement bearing No. 01/2001 dated 13th August, 2001 (Annexure-P-1) and invited applications for the recruitment of the posts of Civil Judges Class-II. As per the advertisement in total 100 posts were advertised, out of them 54 for unreserved category, 15 for Scheduled Castes, 18 for Scheduled Tribes and 13 for O.B.C. seats were reserved. All the petitioners belong to unreserved category. Thereafter a corrigendum was issued by the PSC bearing No. 01/2001/01/Examination dated 18.9.2001. Thereafter two more corrigendums were issued bearing No. 01/2001/2001/Examin...
State of M.P. and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ580
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. If ever a controversy had arisen from the ashes and risen like the mythical phoenix, the present litigation does fresco a picture, a complete one on that score, albeit on keener scrutiny of the factual matrix. Time is neither imprisoned by man nor does it a restive pause by acts of men. An application under Section 172 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') preferred by the original respondent, Radharaman, created a stir in the minds of respondent No. 3, namely, Gining Wali Jamni Bachao Sangharsha Samiti (fore brevity 'the Samiti') as if a Tsunami is likely to change the course of sea. The application pertained to the grant of permission for diversion. After the permission for diversion was granted as per Annexure P-8 on 28-6-1988 by the Competent Authority, namely, Sub Divisional Officer, Kukshi, District Dhar, the respondent No. 3 sprung into action by filing a complaint that such permission at the instance of Radharaman was...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D and H Secheron Electrodes Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR193(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue (CIT) under Section 260A of the IT Act against the order dt. 27th Nov., 2002, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 130/Ind/1997. 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 is right in law and fact, in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ?2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri Vijay Asudani, learned counsel for the assessee.3. The dispute in this appeal essentially relates to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1993-94. The AO imposed the penalty by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) ibid on the assessee during the assessment year in question. However, the CIT(A) and later Tribunal set it aside by ...
Girraj S/O Shri Banwari Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ325
ORDERS.A. Naqvi, J.1. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner Girraj said to be a delinquent juvenile has been convicted by impugned order dated 3-3-2006 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 95/2006 whereby confirming the order dated 1-3-2006 rejecting bail application of petitioner.2. Petitioner has been charged for committing offence under Sections 302 and 376 of I.P.C. and he is under custody in connection with crime No. 17/2006 registered by police station Vijaypur tehsil Raghogarh district Guna. ft has been observed by appellate court in para 10 of its order that date of birth of delinquent juvenile is 4-10-19S8 and he is a juvenile. Both the courts below rejected the bail application of petitioner on the ground that if petitioner is released on bail, his release would defeat the ends of justice. Aggrieved by impugned order, under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to ...
M.P.E.B. Diploma Engineers' Association through Its General Secretary- ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR782]; 2006(4)MPLJ69
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have pressed only prayer No. 2 made in the petition that the wages in between 18/10/1993 to 26/10/1993 which have been deducted on account of their participation in the agitation by the petitioners be paid to them. 2. The facts are not disputed that the petitioners had undergone an agitation between 18/10/1993 to 26/10/1993. According to the petitioners, the third phase of the agitation began on 25/10/1993 when three members of the petitioners sat on 'Fast unto death'. Thereafter there was a meeting between the respondents and the members of the Negotiation Committee of petitioner No. 1 on 25/10/1993 at 10.30 a.m. The chairman persuaded the petitioners to withdraw the agitation. On this very day a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 13/9/1993 (Annexure-P/21) was supplied to petitioner No. 1 According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, as desired by the Ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »