Chhattisgarh Court July 2009 Judgments

Samudri Bai Vs. Sukhiram and anr.

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT31(CG)

ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. Present applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 6-5-2002 passed by the Vth Civil Judge Class II, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2000 whereby learned Vth Civil Judge Class II has decided the issue relating to tenability negative against the applicant.2. Order is challenged on the ground that Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction vested on it by holding that Civil Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit which was barred under Section 257 read with Section 170B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short 'the Code' of 1959).3. Short facts relating to the dispute are one application was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer by one Ramjatan which was allowed and finally the order was maintained by the Revenue Commissioner and possession was handed over to present applicant after order of Revenue Authority suit for declaration arid possession of land was filed by non-applicant No. 1 against the applicant a...

Chandra Prasad Liquor Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(NULL)409

ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The appellant/assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Jabalpur Bench, on following substantial questions of law :(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is legal and valid when the AO illegally assumed jurisdiction for levy of penalty without recording proper satisfaction about concealing the true and correct particulars of income ?(ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and vitiated in law in holding that non-production of account books was intentional when in quantum appeal the Tribunal has itself held that ....'the AO was not justified in drawing the inference that the assessee did not produce the books of account intentionally (para 5) and the estimated disallowance of expenses was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs (para 7).' The di...

Gajendra Rai. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.

Court: Chhattisgarh

Summary...

Subhash Chandra Sen Vs. Geeta Bai (Smt.)

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT22(CG)

N.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard on admission.2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-2-1994 passed in Civil Appeal No. 81-A/1991 by 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur whereby the judgment and decree dated 19-10-1989 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 168-A/1987, by which the respondent/plaintiffs suit for eviction and arrears of rent, has been decreed, has been affirmed.3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellant/defendant on the ground of Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(g) of the M.P. (C.G.) Accommodation Control Act (briefly 'the Act') and also claimed arrears of rent since 1983. As per the plaintiff, she purchased one house situated at Pandri, Raipur bearing Municipal No. 16/585 (old) and bearing No. 16/674 (new) vide registered sale deed dated 20-5-83 from its owner Top Singh Verma for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and the suit shop is part of this house.4. From t...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raipur Transport Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(NULL)683

ORDERDhirendra Mshra, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (henceforth the 'Tribunal') Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dt. 15th March, 2004 in ITA No. 333/Nag/1999 on the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,13,720 levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961?2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/assessee, which is a limited company, is engaged in the business of transportation. The company collected passenger tax along with journey fare from the passengers. The company followed mercantile system of accounting and on that basis the liability of passenger tax to the extent of Rs. 3,90,990 was allowed in the year of accrual as a deduction while computing income. Although the company collected passenger tax and claimed the liability to pay such tax ...

LaxmIn (Bai) (Smt.) Vs. Khageshwar Singh and ors.

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT13

ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. By this second appeal present appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 18-12-2001 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/99, affirming the judgment and decree dated 5-1-98 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Sarangarh in Civil Suit No. 52-A/97 whereby learned Civil Judge Class I has partly decreed the suit of the respondent No. 1 lor declaration, partition and separate possession.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree impugned on the ground that Court below has not considered the law that preliminary decree for partition of the immovable property is sine qua non and when will effecting the propriety not owned by the person is void ab initio.3. The brief facts of the case are that mother-in-law of the present appellant Sulochana has executed the Will of suit property on 22-10-2006. She died in the year 1991, after the death of Sulochana the present ...