Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Cit Vs. D and H Secheron Electrodes Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN445(MP)
ORDERPer Sapre, J.This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order, dated 30-9-2003, passed by learned Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 26/Ind/97. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether ITAT was justified in setting aside of a finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax in section 263 proceedings by deleting a sum of Rs. 6,83,304 in relation to penalty imposed upon the assessee under the Sales Tax Law?2. Whether benefit of deletion amounting to Rs. 6,83,304 granted to the assessee by the Tribunal can be said to be justified and is an allowable deduction and if so under what head?2. The dispute pertains to assessment year 1989-90. It is in relation to a deduction claimed by the assessee (respondent herein) amounting to Rs. 6,83,304 paid towards penalty under the Sales Tax Laws. In the assessment year in question, the questio...
Shyamsingh Thakur Vs. Sushri Mulyabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ125
W.A. Shah, J.1. This. is defendant's Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-5-2005 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 41-A/2005 confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-1-2005 passed by learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 167-A/2004 discarding other matters and directing eviction of the defendant from the tenanted premises specified in plaint on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ('Act' hereafter).2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant/defendant on 9-11-1998 for arrears of rent, eviction and mesne profits relating to tenanted premises. Decree for eviction was prayed on the grounds as envisaged under Sections 12(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the Act. The plaintiff also specifically pleaded that she was a divorcee as her husband had divorced her according ...
Harkrishna Pathak and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ268
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. This is an application for modification of the judgment and decree dated 21-11-88 in F.A. No. 237/81 and seeking re-determination of the compensation awarded to the applicants.2. The Claim of the applicants is based on Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The facts which are relevant for adjudication of the application are that 478.97 acres of land was sought to be acquired by the respondent/State by issuance of a notification by Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 8-3-65. After due notice and inquiry the land was acquired and the compensation for the same was determined by the Collector.3. Being aggrieved by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer as many as 41 persons including the father of the applicants filed an application for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act. On reference award dated 30-7-81 came to be passed by the Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in MJC No. 27/71. Being aggrieved by the aw...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D and H Secheron Electrodes Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: [2008]301ITR20(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the CIT (Revenue) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 30th Sept., 2003, passed by learned Members of Tribunal in ITA No. 26/Ind/1997. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law:1. Whether Tribunal was justified in setting aside of a finding recorded by the CIT in Section 263 proceedings by deleting a sum of Rs. 6,83,304 in relation to penalty imposed upon the assessee under the sales-tax law ?2. Whether benefit of deletion amounting to Rs. 6,83,304 granted to the assessee by the Tribunal can be said to be justified and is an allowable deduction and if so under what head ?2. The dispute pertains to asst. yr. 1989-90. It is in relation to a deduction claimed by the assessee (respondent herein) amounting to Rs. 6,83,304 paid towards penalty under the sales-tax laws. In the assessment year in question, the question arose as to whether assessee can be granted benefit of this sum (Rs....
Anand Mahindra Vs. Saudan Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ389
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid M.Cr.Cs.2. Petitioner Anand Mahindra, Managing Director of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and M/s Bhopal Motors Ltd., Bhopal have filed both the aforesaid petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners as well as the order dated 6-3-1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 586/98 and also for quashing the order dated 18-5-2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Civil Revision No. 45/2001.3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Saudan Singh has filed a private complaint against both the petitioners that he purchased a Commander Jeep from Bhopal Motors, Bhopal on 18-9-1997. Mahindra and Mahindra company is the manufacturer of the Commander Jeep and Bhopal Motors, Bhopal is the dealer of the petitioner Company and there is no dispute about the aforesaid facts. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that the complainant alongwith his ...
Mohar Singh Vs. Lakhan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: I(2008)BC86; 2006(3)MPLJ595
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashment of the order dated 29-8-2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 1666/03, whereby though the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the respondent/accused on 15-4-2005 for dismissing the complaint on the ground of barred by limitation, but observed that the complaint ought to have been filed within the period of 15 days from the first notice dated 30-6-2003. Against that observation, the petitioner has filed this petition because the observation may come in his way at the time of final disposal and may prejudice this case.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent took loan of Rs. 2,22,000/- from the petitioner and for repayment of the said loan he issued a cheque No. 164351, dated 11-6-2003 of Allahabad Bank Branch Vidisha. The aforesaid cheque was presented for collection to his banker and the said cheque was dishonoured on 21-6-2003 wit...
M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, L ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR741]
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. This order will govern disposal of above mentioned two writ petitions.2. Petitioner Corporation appointed respondent No. 2 as Chowkidar for 89 days on 2-4-1992. Again he was appointed for 89 days on 2-7-1992 and thereafter on various occasions after giving a break of one day. Thus, he continued upto 22-6-1996. Case of the petitioners is that cement became available in open market which was earlier provided by the petitioner Corporation. Since, it became easily available in the open market there was no need to keep respondent No. 2 as Chowkidar. Respondent No. 2 raised a dispute under Labour Laws. His statement of claim is contained in Annexure P-3, which was duly replied by the petitioners. Labour Court, Jabalpur after recording the evidence, directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent No. 2 in the services. of the Corporation within one month from the dale of proclamation of award dated 1-12-2001.The same is contained in Annexure P-l and is under challeng...
Kamlesh Vs. Kaluram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC488
S.S. Dwivedi, J.1. By this judgment, both these appeals, which were filed by the claimants against the one and common impugned award, have been disposed of by this judgment. The main copy of the judgment is attached with M.A. No. 2179/2005 and a copy thereof is attached with M.A. No. 2180/2005.2. Both the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned common award dated 19.4.2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaora, District Ratlam in Claim Case Nos. 52 and 53 of 2004, have preferred these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Kamlesh s/o Prabhulal and other appellant Kamlesh s/o Babulal were going on a motorcycle Bajaj Boxer MP-43 BA-7699 from Ratlam to Jaora, at that time, this motorcycle was dashed by a truck, number JR-31 G-1866, which was driven by respondent No. 1 rash and negligently and caused grievous injuries to both the appellants/claimants. This incident has been reported to P.S. Indust...
Shailendra Koshti Vs. Smt. Kavita Koshti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007MP46
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner as against an order passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur, refusing to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal right.2. Petitioner Shri Shailendra Koshthi has filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Jaipur, Rajasthan, in which an ex parte order was passed ordering the restitution of conjugal right as against the respondents. Decree was sought to be executed at Jabalpur as against the property of the respondents. The Family Court, Jaipur has transferred the decree for execution under Order 21 Rule 6 of the CPC.3. Reply was filed by respondent wife Smt. Kavita Koshthi contending that restitution case was filed in order to create pressure. She has filed a case under Section 498A of IPC as against petitioner, his parents and brother, which is pending at the Jabalpur Court in which the prosecution case is already over. Case is at the final hearing stage. In that c...
Smt. Dayawantibai W/O Tulsiram Lodhi Vs. Smt. Sarula Bai W/O Sakharam ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ346
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.9.1999 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Balaghat in Civil Appeal No. 62-A/98, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1994 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Balaghat decreeing the suit of plaintiff has been reversed and set aside and the suit (Civil Suit No. 82-A/88) filed by respondent No. 1 Sarula Bai has been decreed.2. In brief the suit of plaintiff Dayawanti Bai is that defendant No. 1 Sarula Bai and defendant No. 2 Shisola Bai are her real sisters. Defendant No. 3 Sakharam is the husband of defendant No. 1 Sarula Bai and defendant No. 4 Guha is the husband of defendant No. 2 Shisola Bai. On 28.11.79 after making payment of consideration of Rs. 3,000/- she purchased disputed land Khasra No. 136 area 1.68, Khasra No. 194 area 0.42 and Khasra No. 195 area 0.10, totalling 3.20 acres of village Thema from her father Parasram. The land is in pos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »