Madhya Pradesh Court February 1975 Judgments
Heavy Electricals Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. State Industrial Court ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP66
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J. 1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer to the Taxing Judge on a question of court-fees.2. Originally this petition was filed by the Heavy Electricals Employees' Union through Shri Bhanwarlal Shrivas-tava, President praying that the order dated 22-5-1968 passed by the Labour Court and the order dated 18-7-1972 passed toy the Industrial Court be quashed and the Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal be directed to give a pay scale of Rs. 200-300 to 234 Draftsmen concerned in the application with retrospective effect from thedate of their appointment. A court-fee of Rs. 25 was affixed on the petition as originally presented and it was held by the office to be duly stamped.3. On 21st of March, 1974 an application for amendment of the petition was filed. It was stated in the petition that it was filed by the Union in its representative capacity on behalf of 234 Draftsmen working in the Heavy Electricals. The Union had also represented the aforesaid employees before th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chabirani Bai and ors. Vs. Girdharilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP69
S.M.N. Raina, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit under Rule 63 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,2. Plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Chhabirani, is the wife of Ramkar-an (defendant No. 5); while plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4, viz., Ambika Prasad, Ramesh Chand and Tapesh Chand, are his sons. The plaintiffs are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Defendant No. 1, Mangal Prasad, had filed a civil suit No. 36-B of 1961 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Maihar, against Maniram (defendant No. 2) and Mohanlal (defendant No. 3). During the pendency of that suit, Ramkaran (defendant No. 5)stood surety for defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to get their property released from attachment before judgment. The suit was ultimately decreed on 5-5-1961. On the strength of the surety bond executed by Ramkaran, the decree-holder proceeded to execute the decree by attachment of a double-storeyed house belonging to Ramkaran. The plaintiffs preferred an objection to the atta...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Chironjilal Ramjibhai and Co. Vs. Chunarmal Motiram and Co. and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ437
ORDERU.N. Bhachawat, J.1. The only question for deci-sion in this revision is whether the revision which is admittedly against an interlocutory order is competent in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Code') which specifically prohibits a revision against any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.2. The present revision arises out of the proceedings under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old Code') in the Court below which was initiated on the report of the Railway Police, Bilaspur, dated March 28, 1974, whereupon the City Magistrate had passed a preliminary order on 8-4-1974 under Section 145(1) and an ad interim order of attachment under Section 145 (4) of Old Code. The proceedings thereafter under the orders of the District Magistrate were made over to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bil...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.M. Modi and Sons
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR548(MP)
P.K. Tare. C.J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 391 of 1972 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. V. M. Modi and Sons).2. The respondent-firm was to be assessed for the assessment year 1960-61, for which the accounting period ended on December 31, 1959. The return on behalf of the firm was due on July 5, 1-960, but actually it was filed on March 30, 1961, that is, during the assessment year. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposing penalty for late filing of the return. By order dated December 1, 1966 (petitioner's annexure 'C'), the Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that there was no reasonable cause for the late filing of the return and, therefore, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,448.3. On an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he, by order dated February 20, 1969 (petitioner's annexure 'E'), reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,000. On a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal by order dated Septe...
Tag this Judgment!Malwa Knitting Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1975
Reported in: [1977]107ITR379(MP)
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1959-60?'2. The facts leading to the present reference are as follows : There was a Hindu undivided family carrying on business under the name of M/s. Malwa Knitting Works till March 31, 1958. On April 1, 1958, there was a partial partition between the family members and on that very day, a partnership was formed, which with effect from that date carried on the former family business. The partners of the firm were Shri Jagdishrai, advocate, his younger brother, Shri Amritlal, and their mother, Smt Satyawatibai. This partnership firm applied for registration for the assessment year 1959-60, which was refused by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Vs. Mst. Parveen and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1975
Reported in: AIR1975MP196
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This appeal, filedby the plaintiff Durga Prasad, is directed against the Judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Chhind-wara, dated 25-7-1970, decreeing his claim for damages for Rs. 36,000/- for wrongful extraction and sale of about 1,800 tons of manganese ore against the defendant No. 1, Mst. Parveen Foujdar, together with interest at 4% per annum thereon from the date of the decree i.e., from 25-7-70 till realisation, as against his claim fox recovery of damages amounting to Rupees 50,000/- for loss of profits due to wrongful extraction and sale of manganese ore, and dismising his suit against the other defendants, including the defendant No. 3, the State of Madhya Pradesh.By the appeal, the plaintiff seeks a modification of the decree, and prays that the dismissal of the suit against the defendant No. 3, the State of Madhya Pradesh be set aside, and a decree for Rupees 50,000/- as damages be passed against the defendants Nos. 1 and 3. There is no appea...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Agarwal Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1975MP132
Tare, C.J.1. This case was refer-red by a Single Bench to consider thequestion whether during the pendency of a stay order passed by the High Court in a Civil Revision, the trial Court could Pass an order of attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts leading to the present reference are as follows. The respondent is the land-lady and the petitioner is her tenant. The respondent filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent, which is registered as Civil Suit No. 210-A of 1970. The trial Judge passed an order, dated 16-2-1971, striking out the defence of the present petitioner on the ground mentioned in Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Against that order, the defendant filed a revision in this Court, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 312 of 1971. This Court, by its order, dated 24-9-1971, allowed the revision and remanded the case to the trial Court for a fresh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›