Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
S.K. Tripathi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT504
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 12-5-2009, Annexure P-1, whereby the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad, the 2nd respondent herein, has placed him under suspension in exercise of powers under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Rules').2. The facts which are imperative to be stated are that the petitioner, District Education Officer, was placed under election duty by order of the Competent Authority dated 30-4-2009 as per Annexure P-6. While he was assigned the election duty, the order of suspension came to be passed by the respondent No. 2 on 12-5-2009.3. Though many an averment has been putforth in the petition criticizing the order of suspension, Mr. Sujoy Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner in course of heari...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Garg Trading Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2009
Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN272(MP)
Dipak Misra, J.1. This is an appeal by the Revenue preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for brevity 'the Act'). Be it noted, the appeal was barred by limitation. Notices were issued to the assessee-respondent and after hearing the assessee, the delay was condoned.2. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel for the revenue and Mr. H.S. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the assessee on the question of admission.3. It is submitted by Mr. Lal that two substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal. He has referred to the memorandum of appeal for formation of said substantial questions of law which read as under:(i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in the holding that the case of the assessee clearly falls within the preview of Section 44-AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not deciding the case in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union o...
Ashok Kumar Sahu S/O Shri Rajaram Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT209
Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 31.3.2009 by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2690/2008, by which writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the proposal for recall of appellant, from the office of President, Nagar Panchayat, Chitrakut, forwarded by the Collector, Satna vide letter dated 24.12.2007, was dismissed.2. The sole contention of appellant before this Court was that Section 47 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) provides a proposal of recall of the President and as per Section 56 and 62 of the Act, only after convening a meeting in this regard a proposal can be sent to the Collector, as required under Section 47 of the Act and no proposal could have been given to the Collector directly by the Councillor for the recall of appellant. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in dismissing the writ petition.3. Learned Counsel for respondents supported the ...
Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges and ors. Vs. the St ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT418
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. In this batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the common questions which arise for decision are that how far is it permissible under the Constitution for the State to control and regulate admissions and fees in private unaided professional educational institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The background facts are that in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh : (1993) 1 SCC 645, a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that there was no fundamental right to professional education which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution but framed a scheme in the nature of guidelines which the appropriate Governments and recognising and affiliating authorities were to implement as conditions for grant of permission, recognition or affiliation under which the seats in professional colleges were to be divided into free seats and payment seats and a common entrance test was to be conducted by the State Government and the first ...
Shantilal Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT489
ORDERPrakash Shrivastava, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3-12-2008, passed by the Court of 1st Additional Distt. Judge, Ratlam in Case No. 8-B/2008 holding the document dated 16-10-2002 to be bond and directing the plaintiff to pay appropriate Stamp duty as per the provision of Indian Stamp Act before admitting the document in evidence.2. The petitioner (plaintiff) has filed the suit for recovery against the respondent (defendant) on the basis of the document in question dated 16-10-2002. The Trial Court by the order dated 3-12-2008 examined the nature of the document and held it to be bond and further held that as per Article 12 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act duty was payable at the rate of 4% whereas the document was executed only on the Stamp of Rs. 100/- which was not on adequate Stamp, therefore, not admissible in evidence. The Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay proper stamp duty and penalty as per the provisio...
Ku. Rashmi Khedle and Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT55
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. Since common issue is involved in both the writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are decided by this common order. The issue common in both the petitions is whether the petitioners who are sisters and are Dhobi by Caste, resident of Sehore, and Schedule Caste and whether the action of the respondents in not recognising them as such and denying a Schedule Caste certificate are justified in their action.2. Dhobi belonging in Bhopal, Raisen and Sehore Districts of Madhya Pradesh as per Entry 22 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is a Schedule Caste. The Dhobis, therefore, of other places cannot claim themselves to be of Scheduled Castes. And whether when migrated can they claim such right is the relevant issue involved.3. In the case at hand the petitioner in W.P. No. 15108/2007 having born and brought up at Sehore applied for and got a temporary/provisional Caste Certificate. (In W.P. No. 3229/2004, the petitioner is denied such certifica...
Tabassum Bano (Smt.) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT215
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The expose of the factual matrix has its own unconventional singularity and does manifest special individual characteristics necessitating a keen scrutiny of the nuances of law relating to a writ at habeas corpus on one hand in relation to a claim pertaining to the custody of the female child by the petitioner on the substratum that she is the natural mother and hence, has the absolute right to have the custody and the private respondents have no legal right in the remotest sense to advance a claim and on the other, the negation of the same by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the fulcrum that there is no illegal detention and further on the sub-structure that regaining of custody by the petitioner is not a routine matter bereft of consideration of the welfare of the child which is paramount and is also to be taken note of in a writ of this nature.2. The facts which are imperative to be stated are that the petitioner had entered into wedlock with one Usman Mansuri w...
State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. Shyam Sunder Savita
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT387
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This writ appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by an order dated 13-3-08 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 5143/06 (S) thereby allowing the petition filed by the present petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed on the post of Tehsil Organizer vide order dated 30-11-84 in the pay scale of Rs. 740-1180/-. This appointment was made in exercise of the powers conferred under the Adhiniyam known as Madhya Pradesh Gram Tatha Nagar Raksha Samiti Adhiniyam, 1999 and the Rules were framed thereunder Section 21 known as Madhya Pradesh Gram Tatha Nagar Raksha Samiti Niyam, 2003. These rules govern the service condition of the respondent. As per the said Rules, no channel of promotion is provided from the post of Tehsil Organizer. However, the Govt. has prescribed a provision for grant of two higher pay-scales, firstly on completion of 12 years in service and secondly on completion of 24 years in servi...
Bheem Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3697
ORDERA.P. Shrivastava, J.1. This is first application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. filed by the applicant against the order dated 28-2-2009 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in ST No. 210/08.2. The applicant, earlier, was arrested by Police Station Hujrat Kotwali, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of IPC and was enlarged on bail. By the impugned order, one application filed on behalf of the applicant for exempting the appearance before the Court was rejected. The Court observed that the witness was present and on the last date also the applicant was not present. The presence of the applicant was required for identification of the victim, therefore, the application for exemption was rejected and the Court forfeited the bail bonds of the applicant and issued non-bailable warrant.3. The question for consideration arose whether in such circumstances the benefit of provision of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be extended to the applic...
Mahila Bhanwari Bai Vs. Kashmir Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP232; 2009(5)MPHT114
S.K. Gangele, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, against the Judgment and decree dated 29-9-2006, passed by the II Additional District Judge (FastTrack), Sheopur, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31-A/2006, quashing the compromise order dated 10-9-2000 passed by the Lok Adalat in Case No. 1/2000 in Civil Suit No. 186-A/1998.2. The plaintiffs Kashmir Singh, Ummed Singh, Sarvan Kumar Singh and Ramkrishna Singh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit initially the State of M.P. Tahsildar, one Sundara and Mahila Bhanwari Bai were defendants. Mahila Bhanwari Bai was the defendant No. 4. Subsequently, the name of defendant No. 3 Sundara, S/o Keshara, has been deleted. The plaintiffs pleaded in the suit that father of the plaintiffs Kalyan Singh had been in possession of the suit land and his possession was recorded up to Samvat 2027. He died on 6th June, 1991 and thereafter name of Deval...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »