Madhya Pradesh Court October 1971 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.
Bhutnath and ors. Vs. Mst. Toranbai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973MP157; 1972MPLJ1044
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed from an order dismissing the defendants' appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, which appeal was preferred from an order recording compromise under Order 23, Rule 3, C. P.C., in these circumstances. 2. Mst. Toranbai (respondent) instituted a suit against the appellants for a declaration that she was the wife of Asaram, who was a Police Constable and was killed on the frontiers, when on duty, so that she was entitled to succeed to the pension which became payable, but since Bhutnath (defendant No. 1) opposed her claim, she filed a suit for declaration. 3. The parties are related as follows:-- UMEDI (dead) = Suhatabai (Deft. 3) ______________________|_________________________ | | |Bhutnath Adhin Asaram(Deft. 1) (Deft. 2) (deceased) = Toranbai (plff.)4. On December 12, 1961, the plaintiff offered a special oath to the defendants. Bhutnath accepted the oath. However, the trial Court did not act upon it immediately but fixed 13th D...
Jaikishan Gopikishan and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: 1972MPLJ170
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is ' whether the order of the Income-tax Officer 'filing the return showing loss as out of time' was appealable order '2. The facts which gave rise to this reference are not in dispute. The assessee filed a return out of time showing a loss of Rs. 18,427-11-3. The Income-tax Officer passed the following order:' The return showing loss of Rs. 18,427-11-3 submitted by you on July 10, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61 has been filed by me as out of time. '3. The result of this order was that the Income-tax Officer refused to permit the assessee to carry forward the loss of this year into his return for the next year. Although the language of the order is merely filing the return, it is quite clear that the order has been passed filing the return after knowing that the return is one of loss and that there would be no revenue out of it. This clearly showed that the ...
Jaikishan Gopidishan and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR645(MP)
BISHAMBHAR DAYAL C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is 'whether the order of the Income-tax Officer filing the return showing loss as out of time was appealable order ?'The facts which gave rise to this reference are not in dispute. The assessee filed a return out of time showing a loss of Rs. 18,427-11-3. The Income-tax Officer passed the following order :' The return showing loss of Rs. 18,427-11-3 submitted by you on July 10, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61 has been filed by me as out of time.'The result of this order was that the Income-tax Officer refused to permit the assessee to carry forward the loss of this year into his return for the next year. Although the language of the order is merely filing the return, it is quite clear that the order has been passed filing the return, after knowing that the return is one of loss and that there would be no revenue out of it. This clearly showed that the Income-t...
Vrajlal Manilal and Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC291(MP)
ORDERP.K. Tare, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of the following cases also:(1) M. P. No. 440/68-Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. and Anr. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.(2) M. P. No. 441/68- Vrajlal Manilal & Co. and Anr. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.(3) M. P. No. 485/68- Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif and Another v. The State of M.P. and Ors. (4) M. P. No. 486/68- Jashwantlal Prahladbhai & Co. and Anr. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.(5) M. P. No. 487/68- Purshottam Jorabhai & Co. and Anr. v. The State of M.P. and Ors..(6) M. P. No. 530/68- Banwarilal Harmukh Rai and Another v. The State of M.P. and Ors..(7) M. P. No. 551/68- Dayalal Meghji & Co. and Anr. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.(8) M. P. No. 552/68- Tulsibhai Gordhanbhai Patel and Anr. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.(9) M. P. No. 553/68- Dayabhai Khushalbhai Patel and Anr. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.(10) M. P. No. 554/68- M. Ishaq M. Gulam and Another v. The State of M.P. and Ors.(11) M. P. No. 555/68- Chhotalal Keshoram and Another...
Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR196(MP); 1972MPLJ244
Bhave, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', has referred the following question for our decision: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments on the firm made after all the partners had been assessed first on the share income from the firm, were valid ?'2. Messrs. Kale Khan Mohd. Hanifa firm registered under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, carries on business of manufacturing bidis in this State. For the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 the assessment of the firm was taken up by the Income-tax Officer. When the matter was ultimately taken in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, a new ground was raised before it that inasmuch as the partners of the firm were individuallyassessed and inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer had exercised his discretion in assessing the partners in their individual capacity, the Income-tax Officer had lost jurisdiction to assess the partnership subsequently. This question was allowed to be raised by t...
Saitua Juguwa and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1971
Reported in: 1973CriLJ350
N.C. Dwivedi, J.1. The two appellants Saitua and Jhunna were prosecuted under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in two Sessions Trials 100 and 101 of 1970 of the Court of Sessions Judge. Chhatarpur and were convicted under Section 304 (Part I) and 304 (Part D/34 of the Indian Penal Code in two trials, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The sentences in the two trials were ordered to run consecutively.2. Ratiram (P.W. 2) is the resident of village Ujra where the two deceased Balkishan and Kaluta and the two appellants also lived. The appellants are brothers so also the two deceased. Ratiram (P.W. 2) is the brother of one Khitua, Nathusingh (P.W.3), Bihari (P.W. 6), Goli (P.W. 7) and Chunni (P.W. 8) are the graziers of cattle and she-goats. The deceased Balkishan was the nephew of Bhaiyadeen, Chikua (P.W. 1) is the uncle of Balkishan, Balkishan and Bhaiyadeen were prosecuted for the murder of one Paramlal. Last year, the appella...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›