Madhya Pradesh Court August 2007 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.
Ajit Kumar Pitaliya Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(MP)533; [2009]138ITR182(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by assessee under Section 260A of IT Act against an order, dt. 13th Dec., 2006, passed by Tribunal, Indore in Misc. Appln. No. 66/Ind/2006 which in turn arises out of an order, dt. 12th April, 2002, passed by Tribunal in 1TA No. 15/lnd/1999 in relation to asst. yr. 1994-95. 2. By impugned order, the learned Members of Tribunal rejected the application made by assessee under Section 254 (2) of the IT Act as being barred by limitation i.e. 4 years. In other words, the application made by assessee seeking rectification of main order passed in appeal was dismissed as not maintainable because the same was made after expiry of four years from the date of passing of the main appellate order by the Tribunal which was sought to be rectified by invoking the powers of Section 254(2) ibid. It is this order of Tribunal which is sought to be impugned by the assessee in this appeal under Section 260A of the Act.3. So, the question that arises for consider...
Cadbury India Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT183
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. Petitioner No.1 is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and carries on the business, inter alia, in various kinds of chocolates, cocoa liquor and other cocoa based products and the petitioner No.2 is the Director of the petitioner No.1 Company. The proviso to Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') provides that in case of canned food, the batch number may be given at the bottom of the container or on the lid of the container, but on the body of the container it should be mentioned that the batch number has been given at the bottom or at the lid of the container. On 1.1.1987, the Food Inspector, Ujjain, respondent No.4 collected some samples of Cadbury Drinking Chocolate manufactured and sold by the petitioner No.1 Company and a report on the samples was submitted by the Public Analyst to the following effect:Packa...
State of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Raun Vs. Mahesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT151
Abhay Gohil, J.1. Appellant-State of M.P. has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after obtaining leave from this Court, against acquittal. In Sessions Trial No.186/89 the respondents were tried under Section 302, read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind. Vide judgment dated 29.6.96 the trial Court acquitted the respondents, against which the State of M.P. has preferred this appeal. 2. Briefly stated prosecution story is as under:that accused Kallu was working as Bataidar at the agricultural field of complainant Ajay Kumar at village Machchand. Kallu used to visit the house of Ajay Kumar daily. Ajay's sister Munni was married with one Jainarain. Munni had objected about the visit of Kallu at the house of Ajay Kumar and she was also objecting to keep him as Bataidar. It was also stated that Kallu had also asked for some money on loan from Jainarain, but Munni had refused to give him...
Dataram Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT303
A.K. Gohil, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8-10-2000 of conviction under Section 302/34, IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further two years' RI passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in S.T. Nos. 87/95 and 232/94, the appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C.2. As per prosecution story, on 24-11-1993 one Suresh Sharma (P.W. 1) lodged FIR at P.S. Baraso at 7 p.m. that on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. he was sitting at the door of his house along with his grandfather Jeevaram. At the same time appellant Dataram came at their house with 12 bore gun along with Naresh Mohan, Manoj Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Munnalal, Mansharam and Suresh and they started throwing stones at their house and they were also abusing. It was alleged that Jeevaram was having enmity with Dataram on account of some dispute of boundary of the land. Because of fire he and his grandfather Jeevaram both went on th...
Smt. Shashi Shrivastava Vs. Smt. Vidyadevi Kushwah
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT300
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. This petition is for impugning the order dated 17th March, 2006 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 31/06, whereby the learned Judge has affirmed an order dated 10th January, 2006 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 1302/04. Vide order dated 10th January, 2006, the leaned Magistrate has rejected an application filed on behalf of the petitioner negating his prayer to quash the complaint as the same has not been filed by the complainant but by power of attorney holder and thus not in accordance with the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter it shall be referred to as 'the Act').2. On perusal, the complaint dated 11-2-2002, it has been filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The title of the complainant as has been given in the compl...
National Project Constructions Corporation Limited Vs. Water Resources ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC177
ORDERP.K. Jaiswal, J.1. Heard.2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/contractor against the order dated 13.7.2007, whereby the learned Additional District Judge rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the Bank from encashment of the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an undertaking of Govt. of India and was awarded contract of construction of Ogee Spillway at Tighra Dam vide order dated 29.7.1995. As per order dated 29.7.1995, the work has to be completed within a period of 30 months. Thus, the work has to be completed by 28.1.1998. Clause 5 of the General Conditions of Contract is security for performance, which reads as under:5. Security for Performance:Within thirty days from the date of receipt of the letter accepting his Bid the contractor shall furnish an initial security deposit (equal to 5% of contract value) plus additional security for unbalanced Bids determined in para 18-c, TIB-8 b...
Shriram Builders Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2009MP98
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders dated 5.10.2006, Annexures P11, 11A and 11B passed by respondent no. 1, State Government whereby it has, in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision, set aside the orders dated 7.7.2006 Annexures P5, P6 and P7, passed by respondent no.3, Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of gazette notification dated 4.8.2006 Annexure P14, published by respondent no. 4, Indore Development Authority and another gazette notification dated 18.8.2006 Annexure P21, published by respondent no. 1, State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:Petitioner is a partnership firm and is involved in construction business. Respondent no. 4 Indore Development Authority (in short 'the Authority') has been constituted under section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short...
Nathuram Sharma Vs. Rajendra Goyal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT114; 2007(4)MPLJ394
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. The disputed point in both the cases being similar, both the cases are being disposed of by this common order. In these cases, both the petitioners have been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') imposing only fine sentence along with compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.PC. Both the petitioners preferred criminal appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 19/07 filed by petitioner Nathuram Sharma has been disposed of vide judgment dated 23rd May, 2007 and Criminal Appeal No. 125/07 filed by petitioner Rajesh Bansal has been disposed of vide judgment dated 6th June, 2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Gwalior. In both the appeals, the learned Judge, while highlighting the observation taken in the case of Sanjeev v. Triveni Credit Corporation 2006 (4) Crimes 475, that in such cases fine sentence and compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.PC both cannot be imposed a...
Greater Gwalior Shmashan Jeernoddhar Trust Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT215
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The writ appeal has been preferred by Greater Gwalior Shmashan Jeernoddhar Trust through its Secretary Mohan Singh Mathur. The petitioner trust claimed the relief that area in question is cremation (Marghat), the allotment if any made with respect to any part to survey No. 2216 in area 3 Bighas 4 Biswas be quashed and respondents be ordered not to make allotment out of survey No. 2216. The cremation ground is owned by Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and a direction be issued to remove all the encroachment from the cremation/burial ground (Marghat) situated at Morar managed by trust.2. The petitioner trust averred in the petition that petitioner is a registered trust as apparent from agreement (P-1). Survey No. 2216 has been mentioned as cremation ground (Marghat) in the khasra entries (P-5) collectively filed for Samvat years 2032 to 2039. It has been recorded in the name of 'Municipal Corporation Gwalior Abadi Marghat' admeasuring 3 Bighas 4 Biswas. The area is n...
Dinesh Malviya Vs. Shamim Miyan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT318
Sushma Shrivastava, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the appellate judgment and decree passed by Second Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Appeal No. 132-A/ 1995 reversing the decree of eviction passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Hoshangabad, in C.S. No. 33-A/92.2. Brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are as follows:Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the defendant/respondent in respect of the Suit Shop No. 8 situated at Ward No. 13 at Tehsil Babai, District Hoshangabad. According to plaintiff, defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. His tenancy commenced from the first day of English calendar month and ended on the last day. The tenancy was for non-residential purpose. Defendant fell in arrears of rent from 1-1-89. Plaintiff required the suit shop for starting the business by his wife. The suit shop was also in dilapidated condition and was u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »