Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
M/S Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 I.T.A.No.117 o29. 08/2012 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that similar questions are in- volved in ITA No.156/2011 which has already been admitted by this Court on 24/11/2011. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is admitted on the fol- lowing substantial questions of law 3.2. Whether a deemed sanction or completion certi- ficate in terms of Section 301 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 will hold good and valid for the purposes of claiming deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, when admittedly the appellant had applied for grant of completion certificate much before statutory deadline ?. 3.4. Whether amended definition of built-up area. (as inserted in 80-IB(14)].would apply to the case/housing project of the appellant disentitling them for claiming deductions/exemptions, particularly when in the previ- ous assessment year they were held to be entitled for being granted deduction u...
Sitaram Thakre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
MCC No.973/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.9573/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the MCC for restoration of writ petition No.5438/2011 (s).Considering the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit of the counsel, the I.A.stands allowed. Delay in filing the MCC is condoned. The MCC itself is heard on the question of admission. This MCC has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.5438/2011 (s).which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.05.2012. For the reasons stated in the application, the MCC stands allowed. Let the W.P.No.5438/2011 (s) be restored on its original number. The counsel for the applicant to remove the default within 7 days from the date of restoration of the writ petition. On removal of default, list the writ petition before the appropriate Bench. The MCC stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Steel Authority of India Ltd Government of Indiaenterprise Vs. M/S Sin ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 Arbitration Appeal No.15/2009 Steel Authority of India LTD.M/s Singhal Enterprises 29.8.2012 Shri A.P.Singh, Counsel for petitioner. Shri V.R.Rao, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri S.Rao, Counsel for respondent. I.A.No.7166/2009 seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal Office has reported 4 days delay in filing this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that he has no objection, if the delay in filing this appeal is condoned and matter is heard. In view of aforesaid, delay of 4 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri S.Rao. Appellant has already served copy of memo of appeal to the other side. I.A.Nos.7165/2009, 1089/2012 and 8152/2012 for stay of execution of the award passed by the arbitrator It was submitted by Shri Singh that respondent has already filed an execution before the Court at Katni. It was also submitted by Shri Singh that appellant is ready to argue the matter finall...
Union of India Vs. Malkhan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 Writ Petition No. 12831/2012 29.8.2012 Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent. Heard. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur; whereby, an order dated 4.6.2010 imposing penalty of removal from service on respondent passed by the Appellate Authority has been set aside and petitioner employer has been directed to provide all consequential benefits to the respondent. The respondent while posted as Postal Assistant, Sehore was chargesheeted on 27.10.2009 for misappropriating amount of Rs.4,10,165/. The denial of charges led to holding of departmental enquiry culminating into an order of punishment dated 29.12.2009; whereby, he was reverted from the post of Postal Assistant in Pay Scale 520020200 + Grade...
Smt. Ramarani Vs. Sohanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
M.C.C.No.850/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Jitendra Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicants. Seeking restoration of S.A.No.974/2011 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17/7/2012, this petition has been preferred by the applicants. Considering the averments so made in restoration petition and with a view to do substantial justice, restoration petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.250/- which shall be deposited in the account of M.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur within a period of two weeks from today. Accordingly, S.A.No.974/2011 is hereby restored in its original number. A copy of this order be kept in the record of S.A.No.974/2012. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Suresh Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13470/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, ...
Sukhram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Criminal Appeal No.2665/2011 29.08.2012 Shri Y.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for the respondent-State. Heard on IA No.15678/12, appellant's repeat application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 30.1.2012 by extending a liberty to revive the prayer after six months. Appellant has been convicted under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC for RI seven years with fine of Rs.1000 in the earlier Section while RI three years with fine of Rs.1000 in the latter. Since 13.3.2010 till passing the impugned judgment till 11.11.2011, he remained in the judicial custody and since then he is facing the awarded jail sentence. Having heard the counsel after perusing the record, keeping in view the aforesaid earlier order dated 30.1.2012 and the period suffered by the appellant in jail since 13.3.2010 till today in the available circumstances of the case...
Jeewan Lal Sahu Vs. Mst.Lalli Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
M.C.C.No.915/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Brijesh, learned counsel for the applicant. Seeking restoration of S.A.No.192/2005 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 01/08/2012, this petition has been preferred by the applicant. Considering the averments so made in restoration petition and with a view to do substantial justice, restoration petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.250/- which shall be deposited in the account of M.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur within a period of two weeks from today. Accordingly, S.A.No.192/2005 is hereby restored in its original number. A copy of this order be kept in the record of S.A.No.192/2005. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Aditya Kumar Palta Vs. Harishankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Writ Petition No.5142/2012. Aditya Kumar Palta Versus. Harishankar & Others. For the petitioner : Shri A. K. Pathak, Advocate ORDER (Passed on 29.8.2012) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioner/ defendant No.1 has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 7.3.2012 (Annexure P-7) whereby his application under Section 151 of CPC for appropriate direction to the Secretory, Gram Panchayat, Pondi, Janpad Panchayat Rithi Tahsil Katni to produce the book of the death Certificate of deceased plaintiff No.1 Rammi Bai showing her death on 8.7.2010 has been dismissed. Pursuant to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the trial Court for summoning the original record as prayed in the aforesaid application (Ann. P.6) is also made.2. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers...
Prakash Chandra Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Prakash Chandra versus State & ORS.W.P.No.80/2012 29/08/2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed as a Samvida Shala Shikshak GradeIII in Government Middle School, Todatarafdar, Janpad Panchayat, Sagar. Vide order dated 20th of December, 2011, Respondent No.2 has terminated the services of the petitioner. Services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that petitioner has submitted an incorrect D.Ed. Certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that he has never submitted that D.Ed. Certificate. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was only B.Ed. and has submitted B.Ed. Certificate, therefore, on incorrect assumption, services of the petitioner have been terminated without notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. Even though, notices have been issued to the respondents, they have not filed any reply and on 18.7.2012, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »