Madhya Pradesh Court August 2015 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.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sanju Bai and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Oral: 1. This appeal is placed before us pursuant to order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A. No.2508/2007. 2. Indeed, the reference judgment is a common judgment dealing with other Miscellaneous Appeals, but, learned single Judge has disposed of the companion matters and chose to merely refer M.A.No.2508/2007. He has formulated two questions to be referred by the Full Bench. The same read thus: 1. Whether a claim petition is maintainable and the claimants are entitled for compensation where victim himself is the victimizer to avoid the liability? 2. Whether in the claim petition filed by the victim under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, owner/Insurance company is liable to plead and prove that the victim himself was the victimizer to avoid the liability? 3. These questions, in our opinion, have already been answered by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Sinitha and others, reported in 2012 ACJ 1 (SC). In that case, the claim for compe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prism Cement Unit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2015
1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these 4 appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act by the revenue, they are being disposed off by this common order except the fact that the assessment quarter are different, all other the facts and questions of law are identical. 2. A show cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer to the respondent assessee under Section 201(1) read with 206 C(7) as to why the assessee should not be treated as a defaulter under Section 201(1) on account of the short deduction made on interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act i.e. in the matter of deduction of Tax at source and interest. 3. The Assessing Office found that the respondent assessee has not deducted the interest and TDS for various purchases made for the unit in question the order of assessment was passed and challenging the same appeals were filed before the Commissioner Income Tax Appeal. The Commissioner Income Tax Appeal vide his order dated 19/1...
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. M/s. Perfect Sales, Vineet Mark ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2015
M.C. Garg, J. 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants/state aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2006 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.2B of 2006. whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.3,12,681/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum was decreed. 2. Heard I.A.No.16288 of 2007, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. The appeal is drastically barred by 296 days. 4. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay. The facts as disclosed in the application by the appellant are as under : "(1) That the present First appeal is being preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2006 passed by the Learned trial court namely Fourth Additional Distt. Judge, Gwalior (M.P.). (2) That, the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree ...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M/s. Tirupati Buildcon (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals filed by the State Government under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, they are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Respondent M/s Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., was granted a contract for the purpose of widening of two lane roads strengthening over various portions of National Highway No.78 on the basis of an agreement entered into between the parties. The agreement in question contemplated a provision for its completion within 12/14 months and it is an admitted position that in Arbitration Appeal Nos.42/2014 and 43/2014, the work was not completed within the stipulated period and therefore, after due approval from the competent authority, extension of time was granted. In Arbitration Appeal No.44/2014 also, the work could not be completed within 12 months. It was completed within a period of 17 months and 27 days and in this case also, approval was granted. For the work done during ...
Shyambabu Kirar Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 16.09.2014 (Annexure P/1), order dated 27.04.2013 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 20.01.2013 (Annexure P/3). 2. Brief facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner is owner of tractor No. M.P. 08M 1946. On 19.07.2012, the petitioner's tractor was seized by the forest department with the allegation that he was cultivating the notified and reserved forest land. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice. He denied the allegations by filing reply. Thereafter the specified authority by order dated 21.01.2013 found that the offence under Section 33 (1) (c) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for brevity 'Forest Act') are established. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal which was registered as Case No. 01/2013. The appellate authority by order dated 27.04.2013 rejected this appeal. The petitioner then preferred revision which was registered as Revision No. 54/20...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›