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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bhupendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: [2009]318ITR270(MP)
N.K. Mody, J.1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated March 2, 1995, rendered by ACJM, Indore in Criminal Case No. 04/1990, whereby the respondent was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 276 and 278 of Income-tax Act 1961, was acquitted.2. In short the case of the prosecution before the learned court below was that respondent/accused was working in a private limited company at Dewas. The respondent has filed the return after the delay of 22 months for the year 1982-83. Further case of the prosecution was that by not filing the return in time, the respondent has committed an offence which is punishable under the provisions of Income-tax Act. After framing of charges and recording of evidence the learned court below acquitted the respondent/s for the offence mentioned hereinabove against which present appeal has been filed.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is illegal and deserves t...
Chhotibai (Smt.) Vs. Sunita Kushwah (Smt.)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT175
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the defensibility of the order dated 19-12-2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. 7/07 registered under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') is called in question.2. The facts which are necessitous to be exposited for adjudication of the appeal are that the appellant, Smt. Chhotibai Kushwah, preferred an application under Section 8 of the Act before the Family Court, forming the subject-matter of Case No. 6/2007 pleading, inter alia, that Ku. Komal Kushwah, aged about 3 years, has been residing with her for the last two years and has an inseggregable emotional bond with her. On 18-7-2004 the father of Ku. Komal Kushwah expired due to incurable ailment. Before his death Jagesh Kushwah, son of the appellant, had executed a will in favour of his mother and bequeathed all movable and immovable properties. The said will was executed, as set forth, as h...
Dr. Neha Tiwari (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT222
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The common question raised in this batch of writ petitions is whether a demonstrator should be treated as an in-service candidate for admission to the quota of seats allocated in Postgraduate Medical Courses in the Colleges under the Government of Madhya Pradesh.2. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Sanstha Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1973, the State Government has made the rules relating to admission to Post Graduate Medical (MD & MS) Courses and Post Graduate Diploma and Dental (MDS) Courses in the Medical and Dental Colleges under the State Government in the State of Madhya Pradesh, called the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules, 2008'). In the Rules 2008, 20% of the seats in the Post Graduate Medical Courses in the colleges under the Government of Madhya Pradesh have been allocated for in-service candidates and in Rule 1.2(d) of the Rules, 2...
RamdIn and ors. and Upendra Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT270
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of W.P. No. 13957/2008 and W.P. No. 3304/2009 as the relief sought by the petitioners in both these petitions are identical.2. The petitioners, who are all resident of Village Siddhikhurd, Tehsil Singroli, District Sidhi, have challenged the notifications dated 8-8-2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); 10-8-2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act; and 23-6-2008 issued under Section 17(1)(3) of the Act.3. The case of the petitioners, before this Court, is that the respondent authorities, with a view to set up the Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, have issued the aforesaid notifications wherein, apart from the land of other villages, 427.08 hectares of land of Village Siddhikhurd is sought to be acquired including about 25 acres of land belonging to the petitioners.4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned notifications are contrary t...
Rajendra Singh Sisodiya Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2009MP162
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16-9-2008, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission, Bhopal, in First Appeal No. 2513/2007 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore, dismissing the complaint No. C. C. 357/2006.2. On 9-1-2009, a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, observed that a question may arise for consideration whether an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by way of revision under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act'). Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent on this preliminary legal question.3. When this preliminary question was taken up for hearing today, Mr. P.V. Bhagvat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, referred to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act to show that under Clause (b) of Section 2...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(MP)228
ORDERPrakash Shrivastava, J.1. The Tribunal, Indore has referred the following question of law to this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the allowance of deduction under Section 80-I keeping in view the provisions of Section 80B and Section 80A of the IT Act?2. The matter relates to the asst. yrs. 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. The facts relating to the issue are that the assessee owns two units, one is old and the other is new. The new unit falls within the category of priority industry. The assessee computed the deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in respect of new unit treating it as an independent unit. For this purpose the assessee calculated the gross total income of new unit after considering brought forward losses, unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance of new unit alone. From the gross total income of the new unit so arrived at, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-I. The rema...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›