Madhya Pradesh Court January 2008 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.
Prashant Kumar Sahu Vs. Optel Telecommunications Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT402
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 19-8-2003 passed by learned District Judge, Satna in Misc. Civil Case No. 18/2002 affirming the award dated 18-12-2002 passed by Arbitral Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal'), Bhopal, this appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. No exhaustive statements of the facts are required to be stated for the disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to state that Rate Contract No. OTL : 15/10:l/RC, dated 25-8-1998 was executed between the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for supply of wooden drums. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money vide Draft No. 419903, dated 13-4-98 of State Bank of India, Satna City. The price amount was to be paid within 60 days after the acceptance of goods. It was agreed between the parties that if any dispute would arise, it will be referred to arbitration.3. As per claim of appellant he h...
Smt. Seva Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT407
Abhay Gohil J.1. The appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 582.08, whereby dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the action of the competent authority regarding the adjournment of meeting dated 13.12.2007, which was fixed for consideration of no confidence motion, has filed this Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panch Todia Khasla District Shivpuri. She was elected in the month of Jan.-Feb.2005. Her case before the Writ Court was that on 29.11.2007, out of total 18, 13 Panchas of the aforesaid Panchayat submitted a motion for no confidence before the Sub Divisional Officer. The motion was signed by all 13 members and grounds were also mentioned therein. The aforesaid motion was taken on record and direction was given ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alpine Solvex Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(MP)499; [2009]176TAXMAN285(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by CIT (Revenue) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 24th Jan., 2004 passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 643/Ind/1997. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the IT Act, on the amount of Rs. 8,72,622 being the amount realized on sale proceeds of old gunny bags (packing material) which forms part of the total turnover?(2) Whether the sale amount realised out of old gunny bags which is not the real business of the assessee can be taken into account for the purpose of granting deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I ibid?2. Facts in brief to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal are these.3. Respondent (assessee) is a limited company registered as such under the Company Act. It has a solvent extraction plant where soyabean oil is manufactured from soyabean s...
Kailashi Vs. Smt. Bharosi Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT204
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This matter was placed before me due to conflicting judgments delivered in the present case by Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Gohil and Hon. Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal. On account of difference of opinion, the Division Bench has formulated following two questions for opinion by this Court:Whether as per Proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1995, without any application and without any prayer either by the parties, directions can be made in the writ appeal for examination of Returning Officer, and to call the Returning Officer in evidence?Whether in view of direction made by the Learned Single Judge with regard to opening of tendered votes afresh after giving opportunity of leading evidence to the parties and after following the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Wilfred D'Souza v. Francis Manino Jesus Ferrao : [1977]1SCR942 , any interference is warranted in this writ appeal ?2. Brief facts of the case are that elections for the post of Sarpanch o...
Sangita and ors. Vs. Ganesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1049; [2008(117)FLR75]
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short called 'the Act') against an award dated 10.4.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court, Indore) in W.C.F. No. 20 of 2001. By the impugned award, the Commissioner partly allowed the application made by the claimants under Section 10 of the Act and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,25,365 for the death of one Prakash. However, while passing an award, the Commissioner fastened the entire liability on R1/NA1, i.e., owner/employer of the deceased and exonerated R2/NA2, i.e., insurance company from the liability. In other words, the application was allowed only against the NA1/R1 but was dismissed as against the insurance company, NA2/R2. It is against this partial dismissal as against the insurance company, the claimants have filed this appeal under Section 30 ibid. So far as R1/NA1 is concerned, though he has suffered the award but has not...
Devi Ahilya New Cloth Market Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(MP)583
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by an assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order, dt. 27th Jan., 2005 passed by Tribunal, Indore, in ITA No. 690/Ind/1998. It was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law:1. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the interest amount of Rs. 59,000 received by the appellant assessee from bank is liable to income-tax and the principle of mii'cuality is not applicable to the interest received from bank?2. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel, with Shri D.S. Kale, counsel for appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel, with Ku. Veena Mandlik, counsel for respondent.3. Facts necessary for the disposal of appeal need mention in brief infra.4. The assessee (appellant herein) is a private limited company. The assessee filed a return of income for the asst. yr. 1995-96, declaring their total income of Rs. 2,42,870 from various sources. In this income, the assessee disclos...
Aman Khanuja Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT520
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner appeared in Pre Medical Test (PMT 2007) and secured 185.17 marks out of 200. He appeared in All India Pre Medical Entrance Examination, 2007 and was placed at Sr. No. 674 in the All India Quota in the general category. He attended the counselling of All India PMT at New Delhi on 19-6-2007 and was allotted a scat at Udaipur in a Govt. Medical College, namely, RNT Medical College, Udaipur with a direction to join the College on or before 20th June, 2007 with a further stipulation to submit all the original mark-sheets and papers along with the fees latest by 2-7-2007. As set forth, the petitioner proceeded to Udaipur and submitted his original documents alongwith the mark-sheets in original in the office of the Principal, RNT College. An acknowledgment was issued by the Competent Authority of the said Medical College to the petitioner.2. It is averred in the petition that RNT College, Udaipur took an undertaking from the petitioner in which it had be...
Muniraj Patel and ors., Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT529
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in this batch of writ petitions they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 687/2008 are exposited herein.2. The petitioners, eight in number, are the students of second professional course prosecuting their studies in MGM, Medical College under Devi Ahiliyabai Vishwavidyalaya, Indore. They joined the College in MBBS course in 2005 and appeared in the first professional examination in the month of August, 2006. Result of the said examination was declared on 19-9-06 in which the petitioners were declared as failed. They were directed to appear in the supplementary examination. The supplementary examination was held in February, 2007 and the results were declared on 22-3-2007 in which the petitioners qualified.3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners cleared the examination of MBBS first professional...
Jepika Paints and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(125)ECC224; 2008(151)LC224(MP)
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee Appellants under the provisions of Section 35(g) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The appeal has been admitted on the questions formulated in Order dated, 22nd September, 2005 which read as follows:(i) Whether in view of the Clause 4 of the Notification No. 1/93-C.E, dated, 28th February, 1993 exemption to a manufacturer for the first clearances of the duty and concessional duty on subsequent clearances as provided in the Notification can be disallowed if the specified goods bear a brand name or trade name of another person although the proprietor of the brand name or trade name has assigned the same to the manufacturer ?(ii) Whether it was permissible for the C.E.S.T.A.T. to consider a new ground raised by the Revenue which was neither taken in the Show Cause Notice nor in the Adjudication Order and before the Commissioner (Appeals) ?(iii) Whether the impugned Order of the Tribunal is vitiated on account of the fact...
State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Dilip Kumar Sangni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2008MP133; 2008(1)MPHT534
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The State has challenged order dated 14-2-2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior in Revision Case No. 1338/five/2000 by which the Board of Revenue set side the order passed by the Collector of Stamps, Jabalpur, in Case No. 196/B-105/95-06, dated 29-4-2000.2. The facts of the case are that:(a) A sale-deed dated 25-3-1996 was presented to the Sub-Registrar (Registration), Jabalpur by which a piece of land admeasuring 16650 square feet alongwith a house standing on it was transferred by Narendra Agrawal in favour of Smt. Dayalaxmi Sangni for a consideration of Rs. 8000/-. Aforesaid, valuation was put on the basis of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Case No. 19-A/1993, dated 10-12-1993. The suit was decided between the parties by a compromise.(b) The Registering Authority, Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur was not satisfied with the market value put in the sale-deed for the purpose of payment of stamp duty and sent a proposal to the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »