Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2009]309ITR333(MP)
1. The matter is listed on the question of admission.2. The appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in proceeding ex parte in the matter and further erred in rejecting the appellant's application for bi-parte hearing ?3. With the consent of the parties and as the question is very short, the appeal is finally heard.4. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee was represented by Shri S. K. Jain who had withdrawn his power on the date of the final hearing itself. It is to be noted that after the assessee's representative had withdrawn his power, the matter was not adjourned nor any notice was issued to the assessee but the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on basis of the written arguments which were available on the record. After the said final order was pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT48
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Vide letter dated 21-5-2007 Shri M.P. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar made a reference to the District and Sessions Judge, Sagar for referring the matter to the High Court so that an appropriate action is taken against the contemner for committing contempt of lawful authority of the Court of Shri MP. Tiwari.2. The matter was referred by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sagar vide his letter dated 6-6-2007 bearing No. 1307/BF/93, to this Court.3. The matter was received in the Registry of this Court. After receiving the said reference, vide proceeding dated 20-11-2007, Registrar (Judicial) considered the reference to be under Section 15(3) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and requested to Hon'ble the Chief Justice that, if approved, the matter may be registered as a Criminal Contempt and be placed before the appropriate Division Bench. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, vide his order dated 26-11-2007 approved the proposal and, accordingly, the matt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009ACJ1956
Abhay M. Naik, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide the award dated 21.6.2001 passed by the Member of Additional M.A.C.T., Khurai in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 26 of 1999.2. Case of the claimant-appellant is that she was hit by a black colour Yamaha motor cycle on 12.12.1998 from behind which was being driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner. It was her specific case that the registration number was not mentioned on the motor cycle at the time of accident and thereafter motor cycle was not seen with the respondent. F.I.R. was lodged on the same date, however, without making mention therein of the registration number of the offending motor cycle. The claimant could not trace out the particulars of the motor cycle, accordingly, the same were not mentioned in the claim petition which was submitted for compensation with regard to the injuries received by her in the acci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT213
ORDERAjit Singh, J.1. This petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, is directed against the termination of arbitral proceedings and also for a direction against the respondent for payment of rupees one crore as damages to the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a contractor by profession and he, despite having not much knowledge of law, himself wanted to plead his case. I, therefore, appointed Shri Sheel Nagu, Advocate, not only to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae but also the petitioner.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that during the period from 1987-88 to 1992-93 the petitioner was awarded the following five contract works by the Northern Coalfields Limited (in short, 'the NCL'): (1) Construction of gas platform at Singrauli, (2) Jungle cutting in connection with Ministers visit, (3) approach road for newly constructed shed at Singrauli, (4) construction of pathway in all types of quarters at Jayant Project, and (5) cleaning of over head tank of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP129
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner assailing the order dated 7-7-2006 passed by learned trial Court dismissing his application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC.2. A suit for declaration of ownership and injunction has been filed by plaintiff/petitioner against the defendants on the ground that defendant No. 1 entered into the contract with the plaintiff to sell the property in dispute. In the written statement, the defendants pleaded in para - 1 that they are not the owner of the suit property because the Patta has not been granted by the State Government to them, however, in para - 3 of the written statement, this much has been admitted by the defendant that in the year 1974 the suit property was allotted to defendant No. 1.3. In between the State Government granted Patta in favour of defendant No. 1 - Jogen Das. Hence, an application to amend the plaint has been filed by the plaintiff which has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)MPHT214
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant has challenged the validity of the impugned order (Annexure P-10), dated 15-9-2008 by which the amendment application as well as the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed by the petitioner/defendant have been rejected.2. An application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent praying therein that the marriage which was solemnized between the parties be declared null and void. According to the application, defendant/petitioner was earlier married to one Ashok Khotani, but, without obtaining any decree of divorce from her earlier husband, the marriage was solemnized between the parties. It has been further pleaded in the application that said Ashok Khotani is still alive.3. In the written statement it has been specifically pleaded by defendant/petitioner that there is a custom of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1380
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-9-1997 passed by learned V Additional Sessions and Special Judge, (CBI) Jabalpur in Special Case No. 4/95 convicting appellant under Sections 409 of IPC and 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer as indicated in the impugned judgment, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr. P.C.2. In brief the case of prosecution is that appellant was a public servant and was serving on the post of Parcel Clerk in Head Post Office, Jabalpur from October, 1992 to July, 1993. It is said that during this period the job of appellant while serving on the post of Parcel Clerk was to receive the V. P. parcels and to deliver them. During the said period, appellant received V. P. parcel on 27-3-1993 from Kandivali Bombay and which was required to be delivered to Jogin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)MPHT258
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. The order passed in the present writ petition shall govern the disposal of Writ Petitions bearing Numbers W.P. No. 3657/2008, BOC India Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 3846/2008, Neo Structo Construction Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 4271/2008, Naftogaz India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 4274/2008, Naftogaz India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 1802/2008, Patron Engineering Construction Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 4562/2008, MSK Projects (India) Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 4564/2008, MSK Projects (India) Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 4567/2008, MSK Projects (India) Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 6968/2008, S.K.B. Builders and Fabricators v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 5420/2008, Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 5421/2008, Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 5422/2008, MSK Projects (India) Ltd. v. State o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT161
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant-tenant against the judgment and decree dated 17-2-2004 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 139-A/2001, by which a decree for eviction against him has been passed on the grounds under Section 12(1)(e) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. Briefly stated, the respondent-landlord filed a suit on 27-9-2001 for eviction and for recovery of rent against the appellant-tenant on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a), (c), (e) and (f) of the Act. In his plaint, he averred that House No. 96 HIG Junior (GH) situated at Scheme No. 54, Indore owned and possessed by him was let out by him to the appellant-defendant in the month of November, 1986, for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,300/- for residential purpose. He alleged that since last few years the appellant-tenant changed the use of the premises let out to him and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT396
R.S. Jha, J.1. The appellant/tenant being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 17.1.2005 passed by the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.44-A/2004 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit N.57-A/98 dated 2.2.2001 has been reversed and the suit filed by the landlord/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant on the ground mentioned in Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been allowed.2. The second appeal was admitted by this Court on the following two substantial questions of law:1. Whether suppression on the part of the plaintiff/landlord regarding the premises vacated by Saukat Rai is fatal to the alleged need and the plaintiff is liable to be non suited?2. Whether the premises vacated by Saukat Rai is equally suitable in comparison to the suit premises and the plaintiff is liable to be non suited?3. In respect of the substantial questions of law, which ar...
Tag this Judgment!