Madhya Pradesh Court April 2009 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.
Smt. Ashabai Krishna Badole Vs. Dhannalal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP157
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner/plaintiff, who had filed a suit for specific performance based upon the agreement dated 11-3-1995, being aggrieved by the order dated 2-9-2002 requiring him to pay the duty/penalty on the agreement as required under Article 23 of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act (as amended in its application to M. P.), is before this Court with a submission that the learned Court below has not appreciated the true import and effect of the agreement and unjustifiably required the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty.2. The agreement in dispute is available on the record at Annexure-A/1. In para-graph-5, the document refers that the property proposed to be sold was in possession of the plaintiff on basis of some agreement relating to Aadhbattai, the executants of the document had received the amount of Aadhbattai, it also records that the executants have already received the amount of future profit/Aadhbattai. It also says that under the said agreement of Aadhbattai, the...
Ramlal Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP236
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the inaction of the respondent in renewing the temporary permit for transportation of passengers, which is because of the order dated 10-2-2006 by Transport Commissioner that the Maxi-Cabs having soft tops will not be granted such permit.2. The petitioner, owner of passenger Vehicles-Maxi Cabs, operates on the basis of temporary permits issued by the concerned authorities under Section 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 73(1)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Motors Vehicle Rules, 1994. On 10-2-2006, the Transport Commissioner, respondent No. 2 issued an order prohibiting the grant/renewal of temporary permits to all such Maxi-Cabs having soft top. This order was purportedly in exercise of the powers under Rule 170 of the Rules of 1994 and with an object to provide security to the passengers travelling in such vehicles and in consonance to th...
Grasim Industries Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST596(MP)
ORDERPrakash Shrivastava, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the initiation of the reassessment proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994, without serving the order of assessment.2. The matter relates to the assessment period from April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996. The petitioner had filed the return for the assessment period in question and the assessment proceedings were taken up by the assessing authority and the case was reserved for passing the final order of assessment. The petitioner was then served with the notice dated December 29, 2000, under Section 28(1) of the Act for reopening of the assessment proceeding on the ground that for the assessment period in question certain sale and purchase escaped assessment. The petitioner submitted objection before the assessing authority on February 20, 2001, stating that he has not been communicated with the order of assessment, therefore, the reassessment proceeding cannot be initi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. Rajya Pathya Pustak Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(MP)497; [2009]181TAXMAN50(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this batch of appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the concept of exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act arises for consideration. Though the questions in different appeals have been couched in different language and project a similar issue, yet on consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant-revenue and the respondent-assessee, the question is reframed for the sake of clarity and uniformity. On such ref raming, the substantial question of law would read as under:Whether in the obtaining factual matrix the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in coming to hold that the respondent-assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the element of imparting education to the student is absent to attract the facet of exemption as engrafted under the aforesaid provisions and whether the Tribunal has appositely applied the ratio of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Oxf...
Fatehchand Vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT228
ORDER1. Heard.2. Office has raised an objection that the appellant is required to make payment of Court fee ad valorem, while the appellant has paid fixed Court fee Rs. 1,50,000/- claiming benefit of the Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act No. 6/2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Amendment Act' for short).3. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that by the Amendment Act a maximum Court fee on appeal has been fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/-, as per Section 3 amending Schedule I Clause 1-A providing maximum Court fees and the office objection that the appellant should make payment of ad valorem Court fee is not correct. He has placed reliance to the Apex Court judgment in Lakshmi Ammal v. K.M. Madhavakrishnan and Ors. : [1979]1SCR68 , and submitted that where there is doubt in respect of payment of Court fee benefit must go to the subject. In the present case, when there is a doubt in respect of payment of Court fees, the appellant is entitled for benefit of the Amendment Act. It is subm...
P.K. Gupta Vs. S.K. Banerjee, Managing Director and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT171
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-4-07 passed by Sessions Judge, Dhar in Criminal Revision No. 32/07 whereby the order dated 17-1-07 passed by CJM, Dhar in Criminal Case No. 0/06 whereby the private complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (which shall be referred hereinafter as an 'Act') was dismissed, was maintained, the present petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 alleging that respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are the officials of Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., having its branch office at G/10, Shrivardhan Complex, RNT Marg, Indore. In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioner was the Director of Industrial Unit of M/s. Dynatech Packaging Pvt. Ltd. situated at S-5/2, Industrial Area, Sector No. 1, Pithampur, Tehsil and District Dhar. It was alleged t...
Smt. Sheeba Khan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4276; 2009(4)MPHT301
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J. 1. Arguments heard.2. This is the fourth application for grant of bail. The first and the second applications, registered as M.Cr.C. Nos. 3763/2007 and 4583/2007 were rejected on merits, for the reasons recorded in the orders dated 14-5-2007 and 5-7-2007 respectively whereas the third one (M.Cr.C. No. 10691/2007) was dismissed on 13-5-2008 as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh in the light of subsequent events.3. After being arrested in connection with Crime No. 122/2007 registered at P.S. Shahjahanabad, Distt. Bhopal, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 381, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the applicant is in judicial custody since 7-4-2007. The corresponding trial is pending as R.T. No. 6157/2007 in the Court of Shri Anil Kumar Singh, ACJM, Bhopal.4. As per the prosecution version, co-accused Mohd. Shoab Khan, husband of the applicant, while working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Deputy Welfare Commissioner...
Seed Association of M.P. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT453
ORDERViney Mittal, J. 1. This issue projected for determination before this Court is:2. Whether for the purpose of carrying on the business of producing and selling of Bt cotton hybrid seeds, a permission from the Director of Agriculture of the State Government or from the State Biotechnology Co-ordination Committee (SBCC) is required ?3. The facts leading to the aforesaid question may be noticed4. The petitioner-Seeds Association of Madhya Pradesh, Indore (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner-Association'), is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is an association of persons involved in the business of the manufacture/production and sale of the seeds. Members of the petitioner-Association are also involved in the manufacture of Bt cotton hybrid seeds variety, which is a hybrid variety of seeds developed through gene transfer technology. According to the petitioner-Association, its members engaged in the dealings of aforesaid Bt cotton hy...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›