Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Map Auto Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT201
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. Although these five revisions have been filed for impugning five different orders passed in five different cases, yet as agreed to by all the parties in all these five cases, parties are same and the point in dispute is also same, hence, all these revisions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. On perusal of the record and as not disputed by the parties, it appears that there was a business transaction between the petitioner M/s. Map Auto Ltd. (petitioner in short) and M/s. Deepshikha Auto Pvt. Ltd., Mohini Market, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar) (Company in short). During this business transaction, some goods were purchased by the company from the petitioner and in lieu of the price of the same, five cheques worth rupees five lacs each were issued in favour of the petitioner signed by the respondent No. 1. When the five cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. Hence, five criminal complaints have been...
Umashankar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT425
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the pregnability of the order dated 22-11-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2151/2007 (S) is called in question in this writ appeal.2. The facts which are imperative to be exposited are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') challenged the issuance of notice to show cause 25/31-1-2007 invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The show-cause notice was to the effect that why the services of the appellant should not be dispensed with inasmuch as he had been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case No. 3/2005. It was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that after being convicted on 29-9-2005 the petitioner has preferred an appeal bef...
National Textile Corporation Ltd. (M.P.) Vs. Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(MP)153
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an IT reference made by the Tribunal at the instance of assessee under Section 256(1) of IT Act which arises out of an order dt. 27th Dec, 1996 passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 778/Ind/1992 to answer following questions of law:(i) Whether Tribunal was justified or/and had the jurisdiction to ignore the decisions of High Court rendered in MCC No. 65/1993 decided on 20th Aug., 1996 on the ground that it does not lay down correct principles of law on the issue involved therein ?(ii) Assuming the Tribunal was right in their observations, even then what was the procedure which the Tribunal should have followed in such eventuality?2. Facts necessary to answer the questions need mention in brief. As a matter of fact, for answering the questions referred, the facts relating to the merits of the case out of which this reference arises need not be taken note of in detail because no specific question of law on merits of the controversy is referred to this Court by the Tribun...
GramIn Vidyut Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs. Assistant Commissioner of In ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN263(MP)
I.A. No. 8611 of 2006:1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 24 days in preferring the present appeal. There is no opposition on behalf of the Revenue.In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for condition of delay is allowed and the LA. is accordingly disposed of.M.A.I.T. No. 109 of 2006:2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.3. On consent of learned Counsel for the parties it is thought apposite to dispose of the appeal finally. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal, the substantial question that emerges for consideration is as under:Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for delayed filing of the audit account as required under Section 44AB of the Act?4. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the assessee, a cooperative society did not get its accounts audited as required u...
Sovaran Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT86
ORDERA.P. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision is filed by the applicants under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arising out of the order dated 17-11-2006, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2006, by which the Revisional Court directed the learned Trial Court to decide the application of the prosecution under Section 216 of Cr.PC, dated 22-8-05.2. The main grievances of the applicants are that the impugned order passed by Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law because the same was filed against an interlocutory order. Therefore, the Court below was not having jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by learned Trial Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction.3. Fact of the case, in brief, is that on the basis of the report lodged by the applicant No. 2 at the Police Station Joura bearing Crime No. 355/97, under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of IPC was registered. Subsequently, the ma...
Moolchand and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT272
ORDERA.P. Shrivastava, J.1. Petitioners by Shri Prabal Solanki, Advocate.2. Respondent/State by Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, P.P.3. Heard finally at motion stage.4. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC for modification in the judgment dated 2-8-07 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2001 [Hariram and Ors. v. State of M.P.]. The operative Para 18 of the relevant judgment is as follows:18. So, looking to the facts circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 324/149, 323/149 and 342 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Under Sections 148, 324/149, the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while under Sections 323/149 and 342 of IPC, the sentence is reduced upto the period of six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC be given to them. The conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of IPC is hereby set aside. The amount of fine if realized, it shall be tr...
Madan Lal Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT418
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal. He has lost in the Trial Court as well as in the lower Appellate Court.2. Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on allegations that he constituted a co-parcenary with Jagram (Original defendant No. 7 in the suit and it is a mystery how his name has disappeared from cause title of lower Appellate Court and Memo of this second appeal). According to plaint allegations, said Jagram, with consent of his wife, by an unregistered document (Exh. P-5) adopted appellant on 18-11-1970 after performing religious rituals and as per custom. Subsequently, a registered deed of adoption was executed on 16-1-1998 (Exh. P-1). Further case of the appellant was that Jagram, without any legal necessity and partition between the plaintiff and himself, could not have sold to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 suit property more particularly described in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint. Thus, plaintiff sought a declaration that the ...
Shriram and ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1483
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award dated 1.2.2006, passed by learned Tenth Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 41 of 2004. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,97,500 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Kiran, who died in a vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on a lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out in the compensation awarded and if so, to what extent2. Heard Mr. Sameer Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›