Madhya Pradesh Court March 2014 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.
Ghanshyamdas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
M.Cr.C.No.4546/2011 06/03/2014 Mohd. Ali, Advocate with Shri Vijay Shukla, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.2 though served. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No.165/2009 whereby the complaint case No.309/2009 registered by the learned JMFC Tikamgarh vide order dated 5.3.2009 was dismissed for the accused Rajendra, Ramesh and Ladkunwar and Savita, whereas the order passed by the trial Court was confirmed for the applicants. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 had lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants and other co-accused persons that they assaulted him on 20.3.2000. The learned JMFC after considering the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.registered the complaint against the seven accused persons vide or...
M.A.Ashrafi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
M.A.Ashrafi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Appeal No.221 / 2014 6.3.2014. Shri Saleem Rehman, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1/State, on advance notice. Calling in question tenability of an order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the writ court in W.P.No.1485/2014, this appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalay (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that a show-cause notice has been issued to the committee in question, which is a committee constituted under the Wakf Act and as the show cause notice Annexure P-7 dated 26.12.2013 is issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the M.P.Wakf Board and as the said Officer is not competent to hold the office of the Chief Executive Officer, challenge is made to the notice. It is said that as per the Gazette Notification issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to act as a Chief Executive Officer...
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Writ Petition No.9026/2009. 6.3.2014. Shri Abhilash Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 and 5 to 6. Shri Dharmendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.4-University Grant Commission. Shri Sudeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.7. Heard. I.A.No.1103/2014, an application for taking judgment of the Supreme Court on record, is allowed. Petitioner, an employee of private aided educational institution, seeks direction to respondents to grant 20% interim relief of basic pay & dearness allowance before implementation of 6th pay commission and to implement recommendation of 6th pay commission from 1.1.2006 along with arrears of revised pay scale with interest @ 9% thereon. A further direction is sought to grant 80% arrears of grant which has been received by the State from UGC. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits and not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of res...
Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs. All Directors, Kalchuri Leasing Ltd. Judgemen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
:: 1 :: Writ Petition No.9265/2009. 6.3.2014 Shri H.B.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay ignored. Heard on admission. Order-dated 19.3.2008 passed by Labour Court, Shahdol is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By impugned order, an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming difference of wages for a period from 1997 to 30.4.2001 has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner- workman has failed to establish the entitlement of the difference of wages being adjudicated and admitted by the employer, rightly so, as it is beyond the power of the Labour Court to fiRs.adjudicate the right and then direct for its execution under Section 33C(2).Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act stipulates - (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the am...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Rajesh Maheshwari Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
I.T.A.Nos :: 166 /2010 & 168 /2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur versus Shri Rajesh Maheshwari 06.03.2014. Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant (in both cases).As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals, they are being decided by this common order. Respondent submitted his annual return of income tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 so also for the year 1998-1999, and for both these period, certain commission for sale of tea have been received, the respondent assessee submitted that these commissions were received by M/s Vallabh Refractories and Ceramics Products Limited and the respondent acted for the said establishment based on the resolution passed by the Board of Directors and as the commission income was received, accounted for and utilized by the respondent for repayment of his loan, it was stated that this commission amount received cannot be treated as income of the assessee for the relevant period. The Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) and th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Maheshwari Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
I.T.A.Nos :: 166 /2010 & 168 /2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur versus Shri Rajesh Maheshwari 06.03.2014. Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant (in both cases).As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals, they are being decided by this common order. Respondent submitted his annual return of income tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 so also for the year 1998-1999, and for both these period, certain commission for sale of tea have been received, the respondent assessee submitted that these commissions were received by M/s Vallabh Refractories and Ceramics Products Limited and the respondent acted for the said establishment based on the resolution passed by the Board of Directors and as the commission income was received, accounted for and utilized by the respondent for repayment of his loan, it was stated that this commission amount received cannot be treated as income of the assessee for the relevant period. The Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) and th...
Arvind Rao Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Writ Petition No.3420/2014. 06-03-2014. Ms.Shraddha Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Heard. Grievance raised by the petitioner is against the order- dated 3.1.2014 passed by respondent no.2 declining to refer the dispute for adjudication before Labour Court on the ground that he is a daily wager on temporary basis and therefore, was not entitled to the option under notification dated 28.7.2010. It is urged that it is beyond the powers of the Central Government to adjudicate the dispute and by holding that the applicant is a daily wager and therefore, dispute cannot be referred for adjudication, is like deciding the dispute which can only be by the Labour Court. Reliance is being placed on the decisions in M.P.Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. State of M.P.AIR1985SC860 Sapan Kumar Pandit v.U.P. State Electricity Board AIR2001SC2562 and Kuldeep Singh v. G.M.Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre AIR2011SC455 Learn...
Smt. Chitrarekha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
M.Cr.C.No.9766/2013 05.03.2014 Shri Bramha Nand Pandey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the registration of Crime No.21/2013 at Police Station Birsinghpur for the offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had lodged an FIR dated 18.1.2013 against the applicants by making various allegations. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage no appreciation of evidence can be done. If the complainant had lodged an FIR in the month of December against her husband only, then it cannot be said that the applicants did not torture her thereafter. There is a specific allegation of offence under Section 323 and 506 of IPC against the persons, who were not residing with th...
Bhallu @ Balkishan Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Giv ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Criminal Revision No.2543/2013 05.03.2014 Shri Abhay Gupta, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicants have challenged the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in ST No.139/2013 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC were framed against the applicants along with other charges. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicants assaulted the victims by various weapons. It is alleged against the co-accused Arif that he assaulted the victim Heera Singh by a knife and remaining accused persons assaulted him by sticks. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that by a knife one lacerated wound was found on the head of the victim Heera Singh, however...
Ganesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Criminal Revision No.332/2014 5/03/2014 Shri Madan Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Dr. Smt. Anjani Gyanani, PL for the respondent/State. This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 being aggrieved by judgment dated 20/01/2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Appeal No.05/2014 affirming judgment dated 27/12/2013 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Damoh in Criminal Case No.151/2013 whereby the applications filed by the applicant for releasing accused/juvenile Rajesh Ahirwar on supurdginama have been dismissed. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that accused/juvenile is taken into the custody in connection with crime No.185/2013 for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. Initially, applicant filed an application u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act before the Juvenile Justice Board but the same has been dismissed. Being aggrie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »