Madhya Pradesh Court September 1981 Judgments
Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP206
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. (First) Appeal No. 9 of 1978 and Civil Revisions Nos. 83 and 84 of 1978.M/s. Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the contractors) entered into two contracts with M/s. Hindusthan Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the employers) for construction of civil engineering works in the Coke Oven Zone part and Open Hearth Zone part of the Bhilai Steel Project. The contract agreements being CE/96/62 and CE/97/62 were executed on 7/8th November, 1962. The agreements are expressed to be made on 28th May, 1962. The contractors started work in one zone on 12th Aug., 1962 and in the other zone on 13th September, 1962. The works were completed by 31st December, 1967. The contract agreements contain identical terms and conditions. By letter dated 18th August, 1971 the contractors, claimed additional payment for both the works on account of escalation in wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 during the currency ...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal and Amar Talkies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(MP)451; [1982]138ITR660(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring for our answer the following questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that only a single assessment Could be made on the firm, M/s. Vimal and Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, for the A.Y. 1972-73 in regard to its income for the periods from October 30, 1970, to April 30, 1971,, and May 1, 1971, to October 19, 1971 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the two firms were one entity and were to be treated as one firm for the purposes of income-tax assessment (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when there was a dissolution on April 30, 1971, and a new firm was constituted, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that only one assessment should be made for both the periods ' 2. The relevant assess...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Rao Vs. Inspector General of Prisons and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ925
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is a prisoner in the Central Jail, Gwalior seeks quashing of an order dated 22nd April, 1981 passed by the Inspector-General of Prisons by which remission of four months and three days earned by the petitioner has been forfeited. The main grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that no opportunity was given to him to explain his conduct before imposing the punishment.2. We have heard Shri D. M. Dharma-dhikari as amicus curiae who has taken us through the relevant provisions, and Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents.3. Section 45 of the Prisons Act enumerates the acts which are prison offences. Section 59 further authorises the State Government to make rules on various matters mentioned in that section. One of the matters mentioned is 'defining the acts which shall constitute prison offences.' Thus, by rules, the State Government can supplement the prison offence...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pradeep Shantaram Padgaonkar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: [1983]143ITR785(MP)
Vijayvargiya, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 110 of 1980 (CIT v. Pradeep Shantaram Padgaonkar, Indore).2. These applications under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are filed by the Department on the following facts :The assessee, non-applicant, made a total investment of Rs. 70,918 during the accounting periods relating to the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessee's contention before the ITO was that the above investment was made out of the gifts and donations received by him from his mother's sister. The ITO did not accept the assessee's explanation and held that such investment represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The ITO also initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee and levied penalty of Rs. 24,000 and Rs. 35,000 for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 respectively. The penalty levied on the assessee for the year 1970-71 was eventually set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by its o...
Tag this Judgment!Anjuman Islamia Vs. Najim Ali and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP17
Faizanuddin, J.1. This appeal, under Section 96 of the Civil P. C. has been directed by the unsuccessful plaintiff Anjuman Islamia, Chhatarpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Anjuman'), against the judgment anddecree dated 10-5-1978, passed by the District Judge, Chhatarpur, in Civil Suit No. 2-A/74, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant with costs.2. It has not been disputed that the suit property has been shown and delineated in the plan Ex. P-2 which is called 'Badi-takia' Jama Masjid. It was also not disputed by the plaintiff-appellant that a small plot admeasuring 6' X 6' situated to the South of the main mosque belongs to the defendants in view of the decree passed in earlier Civil Suit No. 28/60. It has also not been disputed that Tegali was an Advocate by profession who was issueless and the predecessor of the defendants. Wazid Ali was the successor of the uncle of Tegali and that the defendants Nos. 5 to 7 are the successors-in-title to Wazid Ali. The defendants Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Surendrakumar, Jabalpur Vs. Kumari Lilawati Violet Manorama Laxmanan, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP49
ORDERG. P. Singh, C.J. 1. Plot No. 7/1 situated in South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, with a bungalow and outhouses belongs to Kum. Lilawati, respondent No, 1 in this petition. The entire area of the plot is 38,115, sq. ft. The area on which the constructions stand is 5,422 sq. ft. The petitioner entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 1 on 11th-September 1978 for purchase of 16,500 sq. ft. of land out of plot No. 7/1 including an area of 4,142 sq. ft. covered by the bungalow, garage and some outhouses for a consideration of Rs. 50.000/-. The petitioner and Respondent No. 1 both applied under Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to the Competent Authority for permission for sale of the aforesaid property in accordance with the agreement dated 11th Sep. 1978. This application was made on 31st Oct. 1979. The Competent Authority on 29th Dec, 1979 exercised the option for purchase of the property on behalf of the State Government under Section 27(5)(a) of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Nathulal (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Ambaram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP114
M.D. Bhatt, J.1. Having lost in both the Courts below, the defendants have preferred the present appeal.2. The plaintiffs, claiming their title with respect to the suit land, sued the defendants for possession of the land in question. This claim was based on the premise that the defendants were in permissive possession under licence for the last several years; but when asked to deliver back, they refused. The defendants denied the story of licence or permissive possession and equally denied the plaintiffs' title. The trial Court held that the title to the suit land vested in the plaintiffs and that the defendants were in long and continuous possession; but their such possession was not under any licence nor was it permissive to any extent. The trial Court, principally held the view that the suit for possession was governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (corresponding Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963), and as such, decreed the plaintiff's claim, On appeal, being prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sharda Talkies
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1981
Reported in: [1984]146ITR133(MP)
1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The accounting period for these years ended respectively on 31st August, 1966, 31st August, 1967, and 31st August, 1968. The questions that arise for our decision are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding the legal expenses amounting to Rs. 1,050 for A.Y. 1967-68, Rs. 4,599 for A.Y. 1968-69 and Rs. 890 for A.Y. 1969-70 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 30,000 paid as per order of the High Court was an allowable deduction under the I.T. Act? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was under obligation to pay the amount of Rs. 30,000 and that the payment related to the relevant accounting period ?' The assessee carried on the business of exhibiting cinema films. To begin with...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Vs. Virendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1981MP268
ORDERG.G. Sohani, J.1. By this petition tiled under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the petitioner, who was one of the contesting candidates, has challenged the election of respondent No. 1 from the Jawad Legislative Assembly Constituency to the State Legislative Assembly, in the election held on 31st May, 1980. Twelve persons including the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and one Shri Madansingh had been nominated for election from that Constituency. Subsequently seven persons, one of whom was Shri Madansingh, withdrew their candidature Thus only five persons, including the petitioner and respondent No. 1, contested the election. Respondent No. 1 secured 29,402 votes while the petitioner secured 27,703 votes. Hence respondent No. 1 was declared as elected,2. The petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 1 inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 is guilty of commission of corrupt practice specified in...
Tag this Judgment!israr Ahmad Mansuri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP205
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order dated 10th March 1981 by which his admission to the Government Mining and Polytechnic, Shahdol, has been cancelled.2. The petitioner got his admission in the Polytechnic on the basis of a declaration that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste and he procured a certificate from the Naib Tahsil-dar dated 2nd July, 1979 in support of his admission. On complaint it was revealed that the petitioner was Bahna and did not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Tt was for this reason that his admission was cancelled. Notice for admission of this petition was issued to the respondents. Return has been filed. The petition is heard on merits.3. The first question that arises in this petition is whether the petiljoner is really a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The community of Bahna to which the petitioner belongs consists of Muslims who carry on the trade of cotton...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »