Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Mohammad Isha Khan Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ351
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner, an Advocate by profession, is a resident of Village Kuraha, Block Navgaon, District Chhatarpur. In the District Chhatarpur, 53 circles were constituted for establishment of Gram Nyayalaya and the Village Kuraha was treated as one of the circles for the purpose of constitution of the Gram Nyayalaya. For the purpose of constitution of the Gram Nyayalaya Madhya Pradesh Gram Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 1996 Act No. 26 of 1997 (for brevity 'the Act') was enacted and the same came into force on 19-5-1997. The Janpad Panchayat unanimously recommended one of the seven persons including that of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was included as a 'law knowing person'. On the basis of the recommendation issued by the Janpad Panchayat, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, issued a list of appointed members of Gram Nyayalaya after formalities were to be carried out by the Collector of the District. As set forth the name of the pet...
Ram Pyari and ors. Vs. Jaipalsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC709
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the award dated 7.9.1999 passed by Eighth Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 2/96 whereby the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the present appellants on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident has taken place with the car bearing number HYK 1, which was owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant No. 1 is the widow of deceased Babulal Batham and appellants 2 and 3 are his daughters. They filed a claim petition alleging that on 5.8.1995 at about 12.00 in the noon deceased Babulal Batham, a handcart-puller was taking his cart on the railway bridge near the University. In the cart, he was carrying a Fridge. At that time, respondent No. 1 who was driving the car dashed against him from the back side which caused him injuries due to which he died.3...
Nishit Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR419(MP)
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. All these appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act raise a common question against the order cit. 28th June, 2003 of the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore in CO. No. 43 to 45/Ind/1997, by which the learned Members of the said Tribunal have rejected the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Department's appeals, in view of the declaration granted to the petitioner under Section 90 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998.2. All the appeals have been admitted on the following common questions of law:(1) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that appeal filed by the Revenue would survive for hearing notwithstanding the issuance and eventually acceptance of a declaration submitted by the assessee (appellant herein) under the KVS Scheme in full and final satisfaction of the demands for the year in question in an appeal filed by assessee ?(2) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that a separate declaration under the KVS Scheme was required to be fil...
ishwar Dayal Rahangdale Vs. Tekdhar Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1703
S.L. Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Second Addl. M.A.C.T., Balaghat dated 15.4.1999 awarding Rs. 55,000 as compensation for the injuries received by him in a road accident that has taken place on 15.4.1996, claimant-appellant preferred this appeal.2. It is the case of the claimant that he is resident of Bhatra Chowki, Balaghat. On 15.4.1996 at about 10.55 a.m. while he was going from Balaghat to Baihar on a motor cycle along with his friend Ram Kishore on the road, near Langouro Uttkal Nala, the driver of the bus bearing registration No. CPQ 8600 belonging to Chunnilal Patle, non-applicant No. 2 and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, came from the opposite side. The bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. The bus dashed his motor cycle due to which he fell down and the motor cycle fell on his right leg and the claimant received crush injuries. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Balaghat, in the offending bus ...
Surendra Kumar Lahoti Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: [2008]300ITR124(MP)
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated July 5, 2002, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, in I.T. (SS) A. No. 8/Ind/98 which has been admitted by this court on the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in adding the salaried income to the undisclosed income specified by the assessee in the return for the block period even when the appellant had in the past disclosed regularly his salaried income and also deducted the tax at source as and when the income was found taxable?2. The assessee is an individual in the service of M/s. Vikram Cement, which is a unit of the company known as Grasim Industries Limited. The appellant is getting a monthly salary from the said company and during the period his income from salary had exceeded the taxable limits, tax was deducted at source by his employer. While the a...
Ravindra Singh Vs. Sub-divisional Officer-cum-prescribed Authority and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ570
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenging the order Annexure P-1, dated 28-3-2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Datia, dismissing a election petition filed by the petitioner under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1993'), petitioner has filed this petition.2. Election for appointment to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Airai, Tehsil & District Datia was held on 16-1-2005 and counting of votes took place on 27-1-2005. According to the petitioner in the counting respondent No. 1 was declared as elected by a margin of one vote. Inter alia contending that counting of votes has not been conducted properly, in accordance with the statutory rules, certain valid votes have been declared as invalid and certain invalid votes have been declared as valid as a result thereof petitioner lost the election by a margin of one vote, petitioner preferred the present election petition under Section 122 of the Adhi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. Sangeeta Verma and Dr. K.B. Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(MP)503
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The above appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), have been filed against the common order dt. 30th Oct., 2002 of the Tribunal, passed in appeal IT(SS)A No. 4/Ind/1999 and IT(SS)A No. 5/Ind/1999 for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 20th Dec, 1996 by the Tribunal, Indore, by which the Tribunal has deleted the addition made by the AO with regard to the income of the assessee during the said block period falling below the income exigible to Income-tax.2. Both the appeals have been admitted on the following question of law:Whether the Tribunal, was justified in holding that no additions can be made in the hands of the assessee pursuant to a notice/return submitted under Section 158BD of the IT Act for want of any material available against the assessee ?3. It is not disputed before us that certain documents were unearthed in the search conducted on 20th Dec, 1996 under the provisions of Section 132 of the Act in which agreement to se...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Tarachand Khushiram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR298(MP)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 255(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts as stated in the statement of case drawn up by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, (for short the Tribunal) are that on the basis of a Departmental survey, notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued to the assessee/respondent for the Assessment Years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. In pursuance to the said notices, the assessee. filed returns of income on 25.3.1986 and thereafter filed revised returns on 8.12.1986 and claimed that the returns have been filed under the Amnesty Scheme. The proceedings of assessment were taken up on 10.3.1987 and additions of Rs. 2500/-, Rs. 3500/-, Rs. 4500/- and Rs. 4500/- were made for the Assessment Years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 and it was stated in the assessment orders chat the assessee had agreed to the additions. The assessment orders, however, were nor served on the assessee. The asse...
Neha and ors. Vs. Mukesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC519; 2007ACJ2136
S.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal is against the award dated 25.1.2001 passed by the Tenth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in M.V. Case No. 394 of 1999. By the impugned award, Claims Tribunal assessed and awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000 (rupees two lakh eighty thousand) as compensation for the death of one Sushilabai.2. Relevant facts in short are as under:Deceased Sushilabai, a government servant holding post of Assistant Teacher, met with an accident on 9.2.1990. On account of said accident, she sustained head injury. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 12.2.1990 in Choithram Hospital, Indore. Learned Claims Tribunal based upon the evidence, found that only respondent No. 1 was responsible for causing the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving, therefore, directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay compensation while exonerating other respondents from the liability to pay compensation.3. Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that the Tribunal failed to see the d...
Abhaykumar and ors. Vs. Sitabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC507
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of the cross-objection preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the claimants.2. By the Award dated 31.8.2001 passed in M.V. Case No. 9/01, learned Claims Tribunal, Ratlam has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 as compensation for the death of one Babu Bheel. While assessing compensation and liability, learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated Insurance Company-respondent No. 4 herein, on the ground that at the time of the accident, the alleged driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, therefore, ordered the owner and the alleged driver to pay compensation together with interest. This appeal is filed by the owner, alleged driver and the alleged transferee. In the cross-objection besides seeking enhancement, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are also assailing the findings of the Claims Tribunal with regard to the alleged breach of policy.3. I have heard the rival submissions at length and also perused the material available on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »