Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Jitendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT146
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-6-05 (Annexure P-9) by which his services have been terminated by the 3rd respondent.2. The petitioner was appointed initially vide order dated 30-1-1996 on contract basis on the post of District Project Coordinator, Dhar under 'Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission' (for short, 'RGPSM'). The period of his appointment was extended from time to time up to 30-4-05. The 3rd respondent, Mission Director Jila Shiksha Kendra, Dhar issued an order dated 25-5-2005 (Annexure P-6), directing the 4th respondent to take the additional charge of the post of District Project Coordinator Dhar from the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation and filed a Writ Petition No. 1041 of 05 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2-6-05, directing the respondents to consider and decide the p...
Shri Rang Petrochem Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercia ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST222(MP)
Viney Mittal, J.1. This order shall dispose of three writ petitions being W.P. No. 3630 of 2008, W.P. No. 3631 of 2008 and W.P. No. 3632 of 2008, as the controversy in all these cases is identical. For the sake of convenience, only the relevant facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 3630 of 2008.2. The petitioner-company had claimed exemption from payment of commercial tax. However, the said claim was not accepted by the competent authority. An appeal filed by the petitioner-company before the State Level Committee was also rejected. Even a second appeal filed by the petitioner-company before the State Appellate Forum had been rejected vide order dated May 3, 2005 (annexure P3 with the present petition).3. In the meantime, when the proceedings for grant of exemption were pending before the authorities, the petitioner-company was assessed to commercial tax. The assessment order was challenged by the petitioner-company by way of a revision petition. The revision petition filed by the petitione...
Aniruddh Pandey Vs. Advocate General and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT473
R.S. Garg, J.1. Before dictating the judgment, we asked the learned Counsel for the appellant that whether he wants to exploit the liberty reserved in favour of the appellant or not because the observations made by us are likely to affect his right of election petition, learned Counsel for the appellant after consulting the appellant, who is also present in the Court, submitted that the appellant wants a judgment on the merits of the matter and is not interested in the election petition. In view of that submission, we have to consider the merits of the matter.2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23-6-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 6706/2008 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant/petitioner's writ petition, the appellant has filed this writ appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.3. Short facts necessary for consideration of this writ appeal are that the appellant, a person registered with the Bar Council...
Parth Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Appellate Forum and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST218(MP)
Viney Mittal, J.1. This order shall also dispose of two writ petitions being W.P. No. 825 of 2005 and W.P. No. 826 of 2005 as controversy involved in these two writ petitions is identical. For the sake of convenience facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 825 of 2005.2. The petitioner-company set up a new industrial undertaking in the district of Jhabua, which is concededly a backward area declared by the State Government, for the purpose of establishment of new industries. As per the industrial policy of the State Government, a new industrial unit set up in a backward area, engaged in the manufacturing activity, except the classified goods mentioned in the notification dated October 6, 1994, is entitled to exemption from commercial tax. The petitioner-company is engaged in blending of chemicals for manufacturing of industrial solvents. Consequently, it applied to the competent authority of the department for the grant of eligibility certificate to claim exemption. The said certificate was d...
R.T. Panthare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT197
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. The sole issue which comes up for consideration in the present petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for the communication of remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Roll even when these remarks are not adverse, though at some point of time in the service career the same may come in his way in career progression.2. The facts in nutshell leading to cropping up to aforesaid issue may be noted first. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Sub-ordinate Accounts Service Cadre on 28-6-1973 and was subsequently confirmed in the cadre with effect from 1-8-1979. The promotion from the Subordinate Accounts Service is to that of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer in the Madhya Pradesh Accounts Service. It is the case of the petitioner that though eligible for being promoted as Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer, he was superceded by order dated 15-6-84 when his junior was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee which held its meeting on 12-11-...
itc Limited Vs. Check-post Officer (Commercial Tax) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2008
Reported in: (2009)22VST194(MP)
Arun Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the relief in the instant petition to declare Section 45A of the M. P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 as ultra vires and quash notice (P4) issued in form No. 76 dated December 9, 2003 and the penalty imposed as per order under Section 45A(12) of the Commercial Tax Act dated December 10, 2003. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to release the vehicles. Further prayer has been made that provision of Section 45A of the M. P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 cannot be invoked while the goods are being transported into the State of M. P., by way of sale or purchase or by way of consignment of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or when the transportation of goods is not pursuant to or in the course of any sale taking place in the State of M. P.2. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a company involved in the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes and smoking mixtures. The company has entered into an a...
Gurmit Singh Vs. the Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR557]; (2009)ILLJ800MP; 2008(5)MPHT311
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The applicant, who was the original petitioner in W.P. No. 2515 of 1997 and respondent in W.A. No. 901 of 2006, has filed this application for review of order dated 25-1-2007 passed in W.A. No. 901/2006 and has prayed for a direction to the non-applicant/appellants to pay subsistence allowance to the applicant for the period commencing 1-3-1996 till the disciplinary proceedings are finally concluded by the non-applicants.2. The facts in brief necessary for the adjudication of the present application are that on 25-6-1990 the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 23-6-1990 pursuant to a report lodged by the non-applicant No. 1 dated 26-5-1990 with the State Bureau of Economic Offences, Bhopal. Subsistence allowance was also ordered to be paid to the applicant as per Clauses of the bipartite settlement and norms prevalent in the non-applicant/Bank. The Economic Offences Bureau vide its letter dated 9-1-1991 informed the non-applicant that no offence w...
Shyama Bai Vs. R. Shanmugasundram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1565
A.M. Sapre and S.K. Seth, JJ.1. Claimant is in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award dated 1.10.2007 passed by learned Third Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 36 of 2007. By the impugned award, the learned Member of Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,29,715 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization for the injuries sustained by the claimant. According to claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced so as to make it reasonable, adequate, proper and in conformity with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is essentially for this reason, the claimant has filed this appeal claiming enhancement in the compensation. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether any case for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is m...
Smt. Rajani Agrawal Vs. Ramswaroop and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR113]; 2008(4)MPHT82; 2009(2)SLJ293(NULL)
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant being aggrieved by the award dated 4/6/2007 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior in case No. C.O.C.8/B/WCA/2004 (Fetal); whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition filed by the present appellant/claimant on the ground that she has already approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation and her claim was dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who is widow of deceased Sanjeev alias Munna Agrawal has filed claim petition for compensation for the death of her husband before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dabra, which was registered as claim case No. 40/02. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by award dated 29/3/03. From the perusal of the said award, it is clear that the claims Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition has granted liberty to the present appellant to move appropriate application before Commissioner, Workmen's ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Koushal Prasad Jaiswal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1830; 2008(4)MPHT170
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2008 (Koushal Prasad Jaiswal v. The State of M.P.) filed on behalf of the accused.2. The accused has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to death by the impugned judgment dated 19-12-2007 hence this reference has been made by learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jabalpur under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the sentence of death sentence awarded to the accused. Simultaneously the accused has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 138/2008 assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in Sessions Trial No. 167/2007. Both the matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. In brief the case of prosecution is that Sanjay Shrivastava (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was serving on the post of Counsellor in the Department of Micro-Biology of Medical Col...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »