Madhya Pradesh Court August 1983 Judgments
Haji Fatma Bee Vs. Prahlad Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1985MP1
B.C. Varma, J.1. This is appeal by the defendant The respondent-plaintiff, vide the registered mortgage deed dt 29-4-1972 (Ex. P-2), mortgaged Khasra Nos. 14, 17 and 18, area 6.63 acres in Sehore District with the appellant, to secure a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. The amount so secured was to be repaid within a period of five years. Possession of the property was delivered to the mortgagee, who was to enjoy its usufructs. The mortgage was said to be usufructuary. By an amendment in para 3 of the plaint, it was pleaded that in view of Section 165(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the mortgage was void, because there was no condition in the mortgage deed that on the expiry of the period mentioned therein, the mortgage shall be deemed to be redeemed in full without any payment whatsoever by the plaintiff respondent As possession was not delivered to the respondent on the expiry of the period mentioned in the mortgage deed, it was pleaded that the mortgagee was liable to account for the prof...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal and Ramswaroop Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR158(MP)
Vijayvasgtya, J. 1. This is an application under Article 134A of theConstitution of India for the grant of a certificate under Article 133 ofthe Constitution to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court against theorder passed by this Court on January 20, 1983, in Misc. Civil Case No. 108of 1981 : Kanhyalal & Ramswaroop v. CIT : [1984]149ITR157(MP) .2. The facts giving rise to this application briefly stated are as follows :The applicant, who was assessed as HUF for the assessment year 1976-77, sold its house on January 1, 1975, for a sum of Rs. 83,000. The capital gains worked out at Rs. 64,465. The applicant, however, purchased a house for Rs. 44,945 on December 31, 1975, and claimed deduction thereof under Section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '). The ITO disallowed the claim for deduction holding that the benefit of the provisions of Section 54 of the Act was not available to the assessee who was not a natural person but a HUF. The order of the ITO was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sampatlal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(MP)293; [1984]150ITR191(MP)
Singh, C.J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and an assessee under the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioner's business premises and the residential premises of its partners were searched under Section 132 of the Act on May 12, 1981. Certain books of account and documents were seized on that date. By this petition, which was filed on March 22, 1983, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents for the return of the books of account and documents seized from the business premises of the petitioner and the residential premises of its partners. The petition is based essentially on the ground that no approval was given by the Commissioner to the retention of the books of account and documents seized within 180 days from the date of the seizure as required by Section 132(8) of the Act. Notice for admission of the petition was issued. Return has been filed. The petition is admitted and heard on merits.2. The file relating to the approval was produced before us by Shri J. P. Sanghi,...
Tag this Judgment!Abhinendra Kumar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(MP)59; [1984]150ITR189(MP)
Singh, C.J.1. The question of law referred to in this case is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the development rebate of Rs. 2,000 allowed in the original assessment can belegally withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The reference relates to the assessment year 1967-68. In the assessment, the assessee was allowed development rebate of Rs. 2,000 under Section 33 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In rectification proceedings under Section 154, the ITO withdrew this rebate on the ground that the machinery was let out by the assessee and was not used for his business. The AAC held that the proceedings under Section 154 could not be taken by the ITO. In further appeal, however, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the ITO. When the reference first came up for hearing before us, we directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement elucidating: (1) whether there was any material on the...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas1024(MP)
Mulye, J.1. This appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. under Section 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against an award dated July 10, 1978, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, in Claim Case No. 2 of 1977, whereby he has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 26,667 plus costs and interest, in favour of claimant-respondents Nos. 1 to 5, as apportioned therein, though they had put up a claim for Rs. 1,35,000 by way of compensation on account of the death of Mathur Kumhar due to an accident that occurred on March 24, 1977, by truck No. MPI 4109.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated, in brief, thus Claimant-respondent No. 1, Smt. Lakhibai, is the widow of the deceased, Mathur Kumhar, respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, namely, Narayan, Kumari Savita, Kumari Kanti and Amrit, are the sons and daughters of the deceased. Truck No. MPI 4109 is owned by respondent No. 7, Mahendrasingh, of which respondent No. 6, Narayan, was the dr...
Tag this Judgment!Motiram Pesumal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR786(MP)
Sohani, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying a gross profit rate of 6% onthe sales for the respective years in the case of the assessee as against the direction of the Government dated August 17, 1973, to charge a gross profit rate of 2% and while the assessee has shown the rate of 3.4% ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows: The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on a business in potatoes and onions as wholesale dealer. While framing assessment for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78, the ITO held that the account books maintained by the assessee were unreliable. The ITO, therefore, made additions to the income disclosed by the assessee by ap...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Agrawal and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1984MP74
B.C. Varma, J.1. The order in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 both of 1982.2. The decision of these three appeals shall turn upon the determination of true scope of Rule 10 of Order 39 of the Civil P. C.3. The appellants in these three appeals are defendants in three suits filed by the respondent Bank for recovery of huge amounts. In all the three cases, the appellants are said to have executed hypothecation bonds in respect of certain properties, including articles of trade. After the institution of the suit, the respondent Bank in its anxiety to enforcespeedy recovery of the amount claimed, applied before the lower Court under Rule 10 of Order 39 of the Code for a direction to hand over the articles hypothecated to it. Detailed replies in answer to these applications were filed, The alleged agreement of hypothecation of goods in favour of respondent/plaintiff has been specifically denied. In the suit giving rise to Miscellaneous Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Chhogalal and Sons
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC200(MP)
R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.1. This order shall also dispose of M.C.C. No. 191 of 1981 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Raja Auto Service), M.C.C. No. 193 of 1981 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Active Transport Co.) and M.C.C. No. 196 of 1981 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kashyap & Co.), because the facts giving rise to these references and questions referred to therein are common.2. By these references under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), the Board of Revenue, M. P., Gwalior, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of the stock of motor spirit which has suffered tax under the M. P. Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1957 (Act No. 4 of 1958), will be exempt from levy of tax under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, on and after 1st August, 1972 (i. e., the date from which the Motor Spirit Act was repealed), taking support from the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant Vs. Aeltemesh ReIn a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1284
ORDERC.P. Sen, J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Criminal Case No. 536 of 1982, Aeltemesh Rein and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. as both the cases arise out of the same set of facts. For brevity's sake, Steel Authority of India Ltd. is being described as SAIL. This is an application by SAIL under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No. 90/1980 dated 30.1.1981 discharging Aeltemesh Rein and M.M. Rein under Section 245(2) of the Code for the offence under Section 454 I.P.C. The other application is under Section 482 of the Code for. quashing the prosecution of Aeltemesh Rein and Smt. Saiyada Mosarrat under Section 11 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Aeltemesh Rein is the son of M.M. Rein and Smt. Saiyada Mosarrat and they are living together. M.M. Rein is an employee in the Bhilai Steel Plant run by SAIL. His...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Jagannath and Co. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC107(MP)
R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.1. The material facts giving rise to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are as follows :2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm and carries on business in grain, flour, etc., at Jaora. The. assessee was assessed to sales tax for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessments were reopened under Section 19(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). As the assessee did not appear at the hearing, the assessing authority passed ex parte assessment orders on 26th June, 1972 (annexurcs D1 to D5). The petitioner assailed the said assessment orders by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court which was registered as Misc. Petition No. 737 of 1972 at the main seat at Jabalpur. The said petition was transferred for hearing to this Bench when it was renumbered as Misc. Petition No. 301 of 1976. This petition was dismissed by this Court as having abated under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »