Madhya Pradesh Court December 2012 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.
Vinod Vaish Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 3[1]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Writ Petition No.18946 o03. 12/2012 Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate for the appellant. Shir Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. It is submitted by Shri Nema that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Assessment Order dated 28/12/2011 (Annexure P/1) has already been heard by CITA on 03/10/2012 and orders are awaited. However, it is prayed that till the decision of respondent no.3, respondents No.1 & 2 may be directed not to enforce the recovery by taking coercive action. On raising such contention, learned counsel for the respondents prays a short time to seek instructions from the respondents. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 12/12/2012. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that no coercive action, against the petitioner, shall be taken by respondents No.1 & 2, by enforcing the recovery effected by the order dated 03/10/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. CC as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju ITA No.217/2012...
Rajesh Shrivastav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 Writ Petition No.6198/2010 03.12.2012 Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi. Govt. Advocate for the respondents no.1, 3 and 4. Shri Brain Da Silva, Senior Advocate with Shri V.Bhide for respondents no.5 and 6. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Advocate for respondents no.2, 7 and 8. One of the issues inter alia before this Court is the legality and propriety of the alleged felling of trees which the respondent no.5 Corporation proposes to do in the forest compartments. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the Corporation proposes to fell trees which constitute the low grade forest for the purpose of plantation of trees. Mr.Da Silva, learned counsel for the Corporation states that the Corporation does not proposes to fell trees of any variety and grade in the forest and the petitioners are under a misconception. Learned counsel for the Corporation, therefore, seeks time to file statement to the above effect clearly specifying that the Corporation do...
Ramavtar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Ramavtar Tiwari versus State of M.P.& ORS.W.P.No.20103/2012 03/12/2012 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. GA for the respondents/State. Claiming the benefit of certain directions issued on 5.4.2010 in W.P.No.4114/2010(s).petitioner has filed this writ petition and it is stated that claim of the petitioner be examined in accordance with the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.7.2007 in W.P.No.7854/2006(s) and benefits extended. Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel submits that claim of the petitioner is identical to the one already decided by this Court as indicated hereinabove and, therefore, similar benefits cannot be denied to the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate invites my attention to the observations made by the Division Bench in it's order passed on 17.7.2007 in W.P.No.7854/2006(s) i.e.Para-35 (h) and submits that as the Division Bench has restricted the benefits to be granted only to such...
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Triveni Prasad Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P No.17775 o03. 12.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned PL for respondent No.2, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.13818/12, an application for grant of stay, on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, returnable by fixing a date within six weeks be issued to the respondent no.1, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure the trial court is directed to proceed further with the original civil suit in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law but shall not pass any final judgment in the matter till next hearing of this petition unless the order of this court. Meanwhile the office is directed to requisition the record MJ.No.2/11 decided by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Nagod, district Satna. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwar...
M/S Righill Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
ITA No.215/2012 03/12/2012 Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. This appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the entire assessment proceedings is bad in law and without jurisdiction as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for arriving satisfaction of escapement of income were based on change of opinion as in the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) all the facts were investigated and there was no fresh material with the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment ?.2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in confirming the reassessment proceedings merely on the aspect of one statement of director without appreciating the fact that the said statement was recorded during the couRs.of original proceedings u/s 143(3) and was considered by the Assessing Officer while framing the original assessment order and thus reopening the assessment on the basis of the same statement clearly amount...
Smt. Anita Vs. Smt. Kailash Nut
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1...W.A.No.1251 of 2012 Smt. Anita Smt. Kamlesh Nut 03.12.2012 Shri R.L.Ariha, Counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 6.9.2012 in W.P.8971/2010 by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent Smt. Kamlesh was allowed and the election petition filed by the appellant before the Election Tribunal i.e.the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Shahdol bearing No.36 Election Petition/2009-10 was dismissed on the ground that it was not properly presented before the Election Tribunal as was required under Rule 3 of M.P.Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices And Disqualification for Membership) Rules,1995 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'].Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the election petitioner was present along with the Advocate at the time of filing of the election petition before the Superintendent of the Commissioner so it was valid presentation of the election petition but the learned Single Judge erred in dismis...
Bhailal Gupta Vs. Murli Prasad Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.P.No.19417/2012 3.12.2012. Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 9.7.2012 (Ann. P-13).passed by 1st Additional District Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Sidhi passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.22/2011 whereby reversing the order dated 7.3.2011 (Ann. P.12) passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Sidhi in Co.No.101-A/2010 dismissing the application of the respondent/ plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad interim injunction against the petitioner restraining him to interfere in the possession of the disputed land and by allowing such appeal and the application of the applicant for issuing ad interim injunction the prayed interlocutory injunction has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record along with the impug...
Uma Shankar Pateria Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.P.No.19143 o30. 11.2012 Shri Pranay Choubey, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 8.10.12 Annex.P/14 passed by the respondent No.4 in Revenue Appeal No.160/A-6(A)/2011-12 whereby the order passed by the Tehsildar in compliance of some earlier order of the Commissioner Revenue has been set aside. Petitioner after taking me through the papers placed on the record said that the Tehsildar has passed the order in the matter in compliance of the direction of the Commissioner which was upheld by the Board of Revenue by dismissing the revision of respondent No.5 and such order was further affirmed by this court by dismissing the writ petition of respondent No.5 but contrary to the direction of the aforesaid order of Commissioner, the SDO has set aside the order of Tehsildar which was apparently contrary to the law and also such order has been p...
Pyarelal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20141/2012 (Pyarelal Yadav versus State of MP and otheRs.03.12.2012 Heard Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K Kourav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State on caveat on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the respondents/authorities reserving seats on the post of the President Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in the State of M.P.Similar issue came up before this court in W.P.No.20038/2012 which has been dismissed by this court by order dated 29.11.2012 in view of the order passed by a Division Bench of this court on 09.04.2012 in W.P.No.5371/12 (PIL) wherein the Division Bench has held that the High Court cannot interfere in the process of election in exercise of powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, once the process of election is settled. The aforesaid petition has been dismissed on account of the fact that the election process has been initia...
Anjani Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.P.No.17915/2012 Anjani Kumar Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.03.12.2012 Heard Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 2.5.1998 by which the respondent no.3 has been made Director of Swaraj Sansthan Sanchanalaya under the Ministry of Culture, Bhopal. The petitioner, who professes to be an art lover and public spirited individual states that he has deep interest in the welfare of the respondent organization being an admirer of literature and prays for a writ of co-warranto for removing the respondent no.3 from the post held by him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.3 alongwith several other persons were initially the employees of the M.P.Kala Parishad which was subsequently closed down and the respondent no.3 was sent on deputation to the M.P.Film Development Corporation wherein he has been absorbed as a Dy. ...