Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Shriram Gupta Vs. Ramji Sharan Gupta and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ193
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the release of Anil Gupta. Petitioner contended that on 5-2-2005 respondent No. 1 Ramji Sharan Gupta who is father-in-law of missing Anil Gupta, respondent No. 2 Mukesh Gupta who is son of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 Pinky Gupta, who is wife of missing Anil Gupta have detained his son Anil Gupta and on filing complaint he was released from the custody of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 12-2-2005. It is alleged that thereafter again respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have illegally detained the son of the petitioner with a view to fetch sum of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. In reply the respondent-State has stated that there is dispute between wife Pinky Gupta and husband Anil Gupta. On the report of missing by the petitioner a Crime No. 44/05 has been registered and the police is trying to search the said missing person Anil Gupta, but he is not available. It is further submitted t...
Jaipal and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC171
ORDER1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant against an award dated 30.4.2004, passed by learned I Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khargone in Claim Case No. 4/2002. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,36,400 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to claimant i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent?2. Heard Mr. Sameer Verma, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr. H.G. Shukla, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, Insurance Company.3. It is not ne...
Krishnapal Singh Vs. Gulzar Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1090
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') the claimant-appellant has called in question the sustainability of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katni (in short 'the Tribunal') on 7.9.2000.)2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 31.5.1997 while the claimant-appellant was going towards Katni from Jabalpur in a Maruti van bearing registration No. MP 21-A 6269. At that juncture a jeep bearing registration No. 20-T 0375 being rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 1 dashed against the appellant as a consequence of which he sustained fractures on both legs. In view of the aforesaid, an action was initiated under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal contending that despite availing long treatment and surgery, condition of the claimant did not improve and he became permanently disabled. The claimant put forth a claim of Rs. 11,00,000 on various heads.3. The owner and the driver chos...
Bhawarlal Vs. Prahlad Meena and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC700
ORDER1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant against an award dated 22.3.2004, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh in Claim Case No. 78/2002. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 80,000 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to claimant i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on a lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent?2. Heard Mr. Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr. R.N. Dave, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.3. It is not necessary to narrate the ...
Simran Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: [2008]300ITR270(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 30th Dec, 2003, passed by Tribunal, Bench Indore, in ITA No. 174/Ind/2001. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law:Whether Tribunal was justified in upholding the order passed by the CIT in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act which had resulted in revising the assessment order, dt. 28th Aug., 1998 which according to the assessee had merged into an order passed by the CIT (A) on 28th April, 1999?2. Facts relevant for the disposal of appeal which lie in a narrow compass need mention infra.3. The assessee (appellant) is a limited company. It is engaged in the business of what is called 'hatching eggs' by scientific methods. The assessee for the asst. yr. 1996-97 filed return of its income and inter alia claimed deductions under Sections 80HHA, 80I and 80JJ. In addition, the assessee also claimed deduction of int...
Mansukhlal Ratanlal JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: [2008]300ITR98(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 20th Nov., 2003, passed by Tribunal, Indore, in IT(SS)A No. 38/Ind/2002. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law:1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corporation : [1997]224ITR614(SC) and Union of India v. Ajit Jain : [2003]260ITR80(SC) may not apply to the facts of this case because they are rendered in the proceedings initiated at the instance of the assessee in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India whereas present proceedings arise out of assessment proceedings and hence, are not akin to the one taken under Article 226 ibid?2. Whether Departmental authorities (AO) was justified in placing reliance upon certain materials collected by them from the bankers without granting an opportunity to the assessee to explain the relevancy...
Ravindra Khanwalkar Vs. Ganpati Khanwalkar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2007MP225
Deepak Verma, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by First Additional District Judge, Sagar, in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2000, decided on 2540-2002, this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff.2. Facts, giving rise to the filing of the said appeal, in a nutshell are mentioned hereinbelow:Plaintiff Ravindra is closely related to defendant No. 1 Ganpati, defendant No. 2 Vinod and defendant No. 3 Santosh, as they all belong to the same family. The genealogical tree, even though not required to be given, but for better appreciation, is mentioned hereinbelow:Malhar Rao was the original owner and common ancestor of the property. He had 4 sons; Vishnu was the eldest, next was Narayan, then Sadashiv and then the youngest being Dattatray. Narayan, the second son, had died issueless and it appears that he was not even married. Vishnu had one son, i.e., defendant No. 1 Ganpati and Ganpati had one son by the name of Vin...
Badri Prasad Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ583
ORDERP.K. Jaiswal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of recovery dated 13-3-03 issued by respondent No. 3 for recovering the amount of Rs. 13,709/- at the rate of Rs. 132/- per month retrospectively from the month of February, 1988 with penal interest on the ground that excess drawal was made by the petitioner from his GPF Account No. ED/NMP/46870.2. The petitioner while working as Head Master at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mohna, District Gwalior, retired from service on 31-8-88. After retirement of the petitioner, the respondents paid all retiral benefits such as gratuity, P.F. etc. and a no dues certificate was also issued in his favour and on that basis pension of the petitioner has been sanctioned and he is getting his pension since 1-9-89. G.P.F. final payment case of the petitioner was forwarded by the employer on 27-7-1989; whereas the petitioner was retired on 31-1-88. During investigation, it was found that due to excess drawal, there was a negative balance of ...
Suresh Singh Kushwaha Vs. Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ412
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of all these writ petitions as in all these petitions common question of law and fact is involved.2. Petitioners in all these three petitions, have filed these petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice Annexure P-1, dated 15-5-2006 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior whereby the Commissioner has informed that houses owned by the petitioners are situated at Hanuman Chouraha and the road at Hanuman Chouraha is very narrow and is creating problems in the traffic hence it is necessary to widen the road and for that purpose such portion of the houses of the petitioners is required. Commissioner has also assessed the compensation for the lands to be acquired by the Municipal Corporation and informed the petitioners to remove their possession from the said portion so that the road can be widened.3. It is an admitted position of fact that the land which is required...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›