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.
Munnalal Agarwal and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ190
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. This order shall also finally dispose, of Writ Petition No. 11791/2005 (Ashok Kumar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.) and Writ Petition No. 14718/20015 14718/20015 (Arvind Kumar Choudaha v. State of Madhva Pradesh and Anr.). In Writ Petition Nos. 11790/2005 and 14718/2005 the Petitioners have challenged the imposition of Commercial Tax on the sale and purchase of Singhada, which they submit is exempted under Section 15 of the Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyarn, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') and specified in the second column of Schedule-I at serial number 16.In Writ Petition No. 11791/2005 the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 2.l2.2004 Annexure P.1 passed in revision No. 180/Central/2004 by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur, whereby he has been directed to pay Commercial Tax on the sale and purchase of Singhada for the assessment year 2000-2001.2. In all these petitions the petitioners deal in sale and purchas...
State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. Shrimati Kiran Sengar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ518
ORDERS. Samvatsar, J.1. This petition is filed by the State of M.P. challenging the order dated 26/11/2001 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior in D.A. No. 654/95. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Shrimati Kiran Sengar is the wife of B.S. Sengar. Shri Sengar was a Sales Tax Inspector. He was facing a departmental enquiry since long. He is missing since 20/10/1983 and his whereabouts were not known. An application was filed alleging that the husband of respondent No. l is dead on the basis of presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act which provides for the presumption about death of a person if it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is on the person who affirms it.3. Thus, according to respondent No. 1 it is presumed that her husband is dead as he has not been heard of by her or any of her relatives, and therefor...
Suresh Choudhary Vs. Atarlal Verma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ506
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The centroidal issue that emerges for consideration in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled under law to hold the post of Member of Jila Panchayat, Chhindwara though he was elected in the election held in December, 2004 from Ward No. 19 of Jila Panchayat, Chhindwara reserved for Other Backward Classes.2. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 7 and his name finds place at Serial No. 407 of the voters list of Gram Markahand which comes under the Zila Panchayat, Chhindwara. The respondent No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Navegaon Makaria in the year 1994. During his tenure the villagers made number of complaints to the Sub-Divisional Officer alleging that he has misappropriated the Government fund. An inquiry was made and a show-cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tollaram Hassomal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(MP)317; [2008]298ITR22(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of other connected appeals being IT Appeal Nos. 13, 14 of 2000, 15 and 16 of 2001, as all these appeals involve identical points and secondly, it is in relation to one assessee except the difference being that they arise out of different assessment years.2. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (CIT) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order, dt. 29th Feb., 2000, passed by Tribunal in ITA Nos. 440/Ind/1994, 855/Ind/1996, 856/Ind/1996 and 1107/Ind/1996. This appeal as also other four appeals were admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law :1. Whether Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the assessment in question which were essentially based upon the revised return filed by the assessee are void ab initio and therefore, annulled ?2. Whether finding recorded by the Tribunal annulling the assessment made by the AO for the assessment year in question is...
Rajendra Marar and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT410
ORDER1. Appellant No. 1 Rajendra Marar has filed an application under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for short) for suspension of execution of sentence and release on bail.2. It is stated that appellant is in jail since last 10 years. In Para 8 of the application it is stated that this is a repeat application for grant of bail. In the application, applicant/appellant has not stated how many applications filed by the appellant were considered by this Court, whether those applications were considered on merits or not, whether those applications were pressed or not, and what transpired to those application does not reflect from the applications. This Special Bench is sitting of hearing repeat bail applications as per the pronouncement of Full Bench of this Court in Gopal and Ors. v. State of M.P. reported in 2004(4) M.P.H.T. 195, wherein the Full Bench considering a right of an accused/appellant to make successive applications for suspen...
Rajkumar and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC638
R.K. Gupta, J.1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No. 21/ 2004 dated 22.7.2004 convicting the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000 in default 2 months' additional imprisonment and further convicting them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500 each; in default 1 month's additional imprisonment; both sentences to run concurrently.2. All the accused persons were tried for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Trial Court in para 27 of its judgment has recorded a definite finding that the appellants have not demanded any dowry and the death, as such, has not resulted because of any demand of dowry. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellan...
Kanhaiyalal S/O Vishwambherdayal Agrawal Vs. Muktilal S/O Rameshwardas ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007MP1
R.S. Jha, J.1. The appellant, in the present appeal, has questioned the legality of the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2001 passed by the First Additional District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in Civil .Suit No. 9B/2001, to the extent that the counter claim for Rs. 3,72,000.00 filed by the appellant- defendant has been dismissed.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant and the respondent were both partners in a firm M/s Naredi Goel Auto Services, Civil Lines, Khandwa. By a deed of dissolution (Ex.P/7) dated 16.6.91 the appellant-defendant retired from the firm with effect from 31.3.1991 and the respondent-plaintiff became the sole proprietor of the firm from 1.4.1991. On 23.7.1991 (Ex.P/8) some of the amounts to be paid to the appellant as a result of the dissolution were settled in the presence of one Basant Kumar who also acted as a guarantor on behalf of the appellant-defendant. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for accounts and for recovery of a sum of...
Rambharti S/O Keval Bharti and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Throug ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ64
ORDERManjusha Namjoshi, J.1. This is a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.2. All the accused persons except the accused No. 1 were tried under Section 4 of the Public Gambling Act 1867 (as amended in M.P.) (here in after called as 'the Act'). Accused Rambharti was tried under Section 3 of the Act, In Criminal Case No. 55/96 the Judicial Magistrate First Class found all the accused guilty of the offences charged and convicted them. They were sentenced as under: Conviction SentenceAccused/ applicant No. 1 convicted under Section 3 of the Act. Fine of Rs. 200/-Accused/ applicants No. 2 to 11 convicted under Section 4 of the Act Fine of Rs. 100/-3. In default of payment of fine, accused No. 1 was ordered to undergo one month's simple imprisonment and accused No. 2 to 11 were ordered to undergo 8 days Simple Imprisonment. In appeal by the accused in Sessions Court, the sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 83/1996 dismissed the same and maintained the judgment a...
Rajendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Laxmi Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ115
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court by which the suit of plaintiff/respondent under Section 12(1)(a) and Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') has been decreed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but on filing appeal by the respondent it has been decreed.2. Before considering the case of appellant it will be appropriate to state one material fact that during the pendency of this appeal, plaintiff/respondent Bhagwandas has died on 18-1-2006. The appellant filed an application for substitution of legal heirs which has been allowed and wife of late Bhagwandas has been substituted in this appeal. The appellant has also filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC seeking amendment that during the pendency of the second appeal, sole plaintiff has died on 18-1-2006. The need as set upto by the plaintiff and pleaded in the plaint has come to an end and...
Pradeep Soni S/O Shri R.C. Soni Vs. Canara Bank Through Its Chairman a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ608
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated. 8.4.2005 and 8.7.2005 Annexure P/1 and P/2 respectively. It has further been prayed to direct the respondents to appoint petitioner on the post of Probationary Law Officer in Junior Management Grade I as per annexure P/6. 2. As per the case of the petitioner vide advertisement dated 19.5.2004 respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for various posts in the Bank. The petitioner being a law graduate and having requisite qualification for the recruitment to the post of Law Officer (Junior management Scale-I) applied for the post (Code No. 06) i.e. Law Officer. The petitioner applied as an OBC candidate and he submitted all the requisite documents as desired in Annexure P/3. The petitioner was called for written examination which he passed and thereafter he was called for an interview which was held on 3.1.2005. On this date the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »