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.
Raj Lal Patel Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ241
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner was a regular student of Class XIIth in Government Higher Secondary School, Bithouli, District Sidhi. In the academic year 2001-02, he deposited fees and the necessary form for appearing in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2002 with 'Higher Mathematics' as a subject. As setforth, his additional subject was Biology. The Board allotted the Roll Number 23516432 and Centre No. 35023, Government Higher Secondary School, Sonwarsha to the petitioner. But in the admission card issued in favour of the petitioners the subject of 'Higher Mathematics' was not mentioned. Due to said mistake of the Board the petitioner could not appear in the examination and lost one year. He submitted a representation to the Competent Authority of the Board through Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School, Sidhi. It is urged in the petition that at the relevant time the petitioner approached the Principal of the School who recommended his case to ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Omprakash Bagria (Huf)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: [2006]287ITR523(MP)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'), filed by the CIT, Bhopal, against the order dt. 9th May, 2000 of the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, in ITA No. 88/Ind/1998.2. The facts briefly are that the respondent/assessee filed IT return for the asst. yr. 1994-95 on 29th July, 2004 in Ward-1, Ujjain, showing a loss of Rs. 2,77,300. The return was processed and an intimation dt. 17th Oct., 1994 was sent to the respondent under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revised return of income on 31st Aug., 1995 showing a total income of Rs. 33,650. In the revised return, the respondent disclosed income from capital gains from the land used for the construction of Bagria Towers, which he had not shown in the original return. In the original return, the respondent had claimed house-tax, but in the revised return he withdrew the said claim towards payment of house-tax as the same had not been paid. In the revi...
Rameshwarlal Purohit Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: [2008]301ITR282(MP)
1. The following reference has been made to this Court for opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the land was non-agricultural land, as the assessee had obtained permission to divert the land for agricultural operations were carried on by way of only a stop gap activity pending sale of the said land?2. Counsel for the party aggrieved submitted that the said question is covered by the order of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Himatlal Govindji v. CWT : [1977]106ITR658(Guj) , wherein it is held that when after the agricultural land is diverted for non-agricultural purpose, after the permission to divert the land then even if agricultural operations are carried on the non-agricultural land as a stop gap activity the said character of land will be non-agricultural land.3. It is a settled position that once an application is filed for diverting the land and the nature of land is changed the land cannot be termed a...
Indian Infrastructure Equipment Ltd. and anr. Vs. Check-post Officer, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Reported in: (2007)9VST453(MP)
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of W. P. Nos. 930, 931, 932 and 934 of 2006 as common question of fact and law is involved in this bunch of petitions under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. In these petitions, the petitioner is assailing validity of the orders dated January 23, 2006, October 22, 2005 and the demand notice dated October 23, 2005.3. The petitioner, a registered company, is in the business of providing equipment running, handling and management services to clients and or for rentals. It purchased earthmoving equipments, viz., 'JCBs backhoe loaders' in Jaipur. After obtaining temporary registration certificate from RTO, Jaipur, they were dispatched from Rajasthan to Harda in Madhya Pradesh through transporter, respondent No. 3. On September 3, 2005, trucks carrying JCBs were checked at the border check-post, Dhabla-Jodi, Khilchipur District Rajgarh in Madhya Pradesh. The Check-post Officer found that the documents in relation to...
Katoribai and ors. Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1637
S. Samvatsar and B.M. Gupta, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants for challenging the award dated 9.5.2000 passed by the Second Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 2 of 1999.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants-claimants have filed the claim petition alleging that Rajaram who is the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 was travelling in jeep No. MP 06-D 262. He was going from Bhind towards Mehgaon. The jeep was driven by Jagannath, respondent No. 1. He was driving the jeep in very high speed and was negligently driving. The jeep dashed against a trolley which was parked on the side of the road. Deceased Rajaram was injured in the said accident and due to the injuries, he died on 1.2.1998. The claimants who are wife and children of the deceased have filed the application for compensation on the ground that Rajaram was aged about 35 years, who was earning Rs. 125 daily by way of labour. H...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motlay Finance P. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR414(MP)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Indore (MP), against the order dated October 28, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 570/Ind/1999.2. The facts briefly are that for the assessment year 1996-97 the appellant filed a return on November 14, 1996. In the said return the assessee had disclosed that it had earned a business income of Rs. 14,36,077 but had showed set off of the said income of Rs. 14,36,077 against the losses brought forward from the previous years and after such set off had declared a business loss of Rs. 11,87,397. By order dated October 23, 1998, the Assessing Officer held that for the assessment year 1994-95 the income of the assessee from purchase and sale of debentures and shares had been held to be income from other sources and hence, no set off was allowed against the so called loss carried forward from the previous years. Against the said order of assessment, the a...
Raju @ Rajiv Sharma Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ566
ORDERManjusha Namjoshi, J.1. The revision by accused/applicant is under Section 397/401, Cr.PC. The accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 1405/2005 for an offence under Section 324/34 and was sentenced to undergo sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for one month. The judgment was of 20-2-2006. The case was pending since 1977. On appeal being preferred by the accused before the Sessions Court, Khandwa on 1-3-2006 it was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 65/2006. The accused moved an application for suspension of sentence and conviction both. The Sessions Court declined to stay the conviction and sentence saying that there is no jail sentence imposed on the accused.2. The accused is before this Court in revision seeking the relief of stay of conviction and sentence.3. Parties heard, record perused.4. It is established law that generally conviction shou...
Maharaja Jiwajirao Education Society and Shri Pratap Bhanu Sharma Vs. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ403
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is made to orders annexures P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/4 respectively. Annexure P/1 is a order dated 11.10.05 by which governing body of the petitioner's society has been superseded and a new adhoc committee appointed. Annexure P/2 is the show cause notice dated 16.1.04 issued to the petitioner's society under Section 33 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Annexure P/3 is the order dated 13.10.05 by which members who have been nominated vide order annexure P/1 dated 11.10.05 have been intimated to take over charge and the order annexure P/4 dated 13.10.05 is a letter sent by the Secretary of the nominated body to the Bank to stay operation of the bank accounts.2. Maharaja Jiwaji Rao Education Society is a society registered under the provisions of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Adhiniyam of 1973') vide registration certificate annexure ...
Uma Rathore and ors. Vs. Om Prakash and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC411; 2008ACJ310
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This judgment shall govern disposal of this appeal as well as connected appeal Nos. M.A. Nos. 127, 126, 110, 122, 123, 124, 128, 267, 131, 257, 144, 155 and 132 of 2003 arising out of the same accident, which have been filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 27/2002 and other connected cases.2. All the claims petitions arise out of the Motor Accident occurred on 24.3.2001 between a truck bearing No. HR 55-4375 and a jeep No. UP 093-D-9168. The truck was coming from Shivpuri to Gwalior, while the jeep was travelling from Gwalior to Shivpuri. As many as 17 persons were travelling in the jeep. There was head on collision between the truck and the jeep, in which number of persons died and some were injured. The claimants have filed separate claim applications which were decided by the Claims Tribunal by separate judgments.3. In all the claim petitions the Tribunal has held tha...
Shashi Bhushan and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ565
R.K. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred by the convicted appellants against their judgment of conviction dated 22nd July, 2004 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 671/2003 whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default of payment of fine a further sentence of four months' each has been imposed. They have also been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, two months' RI.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that deceased Madhuri alias Sangita was married to appellant No. 1 on 10-6-2003. Appellant No. 2 Bharat Bhushan and appellant No. 3 Chandrabhushan are the elder brothers of appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 4 is the wife of appellant No. 2.3. According to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »