Madhya Pradesh Court October 1984 Judgments
Prem Motors Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1984
Reported in: 1985MPLJ93; [1986]61STC244(MP)
G.L. Oza, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference made by the President of the Board of Revenue under Section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act for answering the question :Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the amounts reimbursed by the manufacturing company on account of replacement of parts during the warranty period and against pre-delivery charges incurred during the warranty period for which no consideration was received from customers are transactions of sale under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?2. The facts stated in the reference are that the assessee, M/s. Prem Motors, deals in cars, tractors, motor-cycles and their spare parts. The assessee was assessed to tax for a period 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979. The disputed question as has been stated by the learned President is as to whether the replacement made free of cost during the warranty period of the customers was liable to t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Gopal Dixit Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1986MP103; 1985MPLJ434
C.P. Sen, J. 1. By this order M. P. No. 2443 of 1984, Madan Singh Baghel v. MPSRTC and Ors., M.P. No. 2445 of 1984, Ashok Kumar Jain v. MPSRTC and Ors. M.P. No. 2409/84, Naresh Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors., M.P. No. 2505/84, Raman Kant Asthana and Anr. v. MPSRTC and Ors., and M. P. No. 2394/84, Shyamalal Gupta v. MPSRTC are also disposed of as the facts are similar and the questions involved are identical. In these writ petitions the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to ply their passenger buses on the routes on which they are already plying as nominees of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) and for prohibiting the respondents from appointing fresh nominees on these routes.2. In the first four petitions, the facts are almost identical while in the last petition there is slight difference. All these petitioners are claimed to be educated unemployed graduates. The Government of India spon...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Neena Vs. John Pormer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP85
Sohani, J.1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce. Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), made by the learned IVth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, for confirmation of a decree nisi passed by her under Section 16 of the Act.2. The petitioner, Mrs. Neena, submitted a petition under Section 10 of the Act for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. She averred that she was married to the respondent in June 1970 in accordance with the tenets of Christian religion; that from the year 1975, the respondent started treating the petitioner cruelly by beating and abusing her and ultimately drove her out of the marital home in 1981. It was averred that the respondent was also having illicft relations with one Shobha The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition for dissolution of her marriage on the ground that the respondent was guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty.3. On summons being served, the respondent filed a written sta...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rekha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1984
Reported in: 1985MPLJ142
Oza, Ag. C.J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the Joint Director, Medical Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, dt. 26th April 1984, refusing admission to the petitioner for Diploma Course in Post-Graduate Studies at Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner passed her M.B.B.S. Examination in the year 1981 as a student of the Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior and thereafter did her internship from 10th Aug.' 1981 to 9th Aug. 1982 from J. A. Group of Hospitals attached to the Medical College and thereafter she was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.). The petitioner after obtaining this degree with a view to pursue her further education joined the House Job in Gynaecology and Obstetrics of J. A. group of Hospitals on 10th Aug. 1982 and completed it on 9th August 1983.3, That the Dean of the G. R. Medical College, Gwalior (Respondent 3) issued a notice dated 2n...
Tag this Judgment!NasruddIn and anr. Vs. Kadir Ahmed and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC35
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. There is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, arising out of the award dated 30-7-1982, given by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 194 of 1979, awarding Rs. 24,000/- as compensation.2. The non-applicant No. 1 is' the registered owner of truck the CPE-9140. The non-applicant No. 2 was driving the truck at the time of accident as a servant of non-applicant No. 1. The truck was insured with non-applicant No. 3. All these facts are undisputed.3. The case of the applicants in brief is that their son Salim was aged 20 years and was earning Rs. 450/- per month by doing welding and other work. He was unmarried. On 30-9-1979 at 8.00 a.m. Salim was going as a pillion rider on the scooter of his friend from Indore towards Rau. The scooter was proceeding slowly and on its left side when the scooter reached in front of Akashwani Kendra Shramik Colony, then the truck No. CPE-9140 came from the opposite direction in a te...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Basantilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP179
G.G. Sohani, J. 1. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 4 for partition. Briefly, the plaintiffs' case was that the plaintiffs and defendant 1 Sobhagmal were brothers and were entitled to succeed to the property of their brother Chandmal, who died on 17-9-1960. It was averred that defendant 1, however, denied the right of the plaintiffs to succeed to the estate of deceased Chandmal on the ground that his son defendant 2 Ashok Kumar was adopted by deceased Chandmal. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition. The suit was resisted by the defendants mainly on the ground that deceased Chandmal had adopted defendant 2 Ashok Kumar, son of defendant 1, two years prior to the death of Chandmal and, therefore, defendant 2 Ashok Kumar alone was entitled to succeed to the property of deceased Chandmal. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, found that defendant 2 Ashok Kumar was validly adopted by deceased C...
Tag this Judgment!Suvalal Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Indore Dn. Indore and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP183
P.D. Mulye, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the matter of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1960 and Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, whereby he has challenged the order dt. 14-9-1983 passed by respondent No. 1 in appeal No. 296/81-82 thereby confirming the order dt. 3-5-1982 passed b> respondent 2, who had cancelled and revoked the mining lease granted on 11-2-1982 to the petitioner for sand mines situated in village Mordhadi.2. According to the petitioner respondent 2 had issued a notification dt. 5-1-1982 for auction of the mines situated in Khandwa district, the conditions of which are mentioned therein. The period for the mining lease was up to 31st Mar. 1985. In the said notification the name of the disputed mine was mentioned at serial No. 22 (Annexures-1 and 2). Accordingly the petitioner put up a bid in the auction for the sand mine, which is situated in village Mordhadi of which Kh. number is 13...
Tag this Judgment!Sajanbai Vs. Surajmal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1984
Reported in: 1985MPLJ277
1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of her title to the suit house and for its possession along with mesne profits.2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows : --Panchulal, father of the plaintiff, was possessed of considerable movable and immovable property and carried on business at Mahidpur, district Ujjain, He had only one issue, his daughter Sajanbai, the plaintiff. As he had no son, he had brought up the defendant, who was distantly related to him. On 25-6-1949, Panchulal executed a will, which was duly registered. By that will, he bequeathed some of his houses to the plaintiff and some, to the defendant. As regards the residential house situated at Nagori Bazar, Mahidpur, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit house', he bequeathed it to his wife Panchibai for life and after her death, to the defendant, provided he maintained and looked after Panchibai, who was mentally deranged. It was stated in the will that in...
Tag this Judgment!Thaneshwar Mishra Vs. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Mandla and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1984
Reported in: 1986MPLJ329
Gulab Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner Thaneshwar Mishra, claiming to be a voter in the election of respondent Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Mandla, feels aggrieved by the order of rejection of his nomination paper (Annexure-P-5) by the respondent No. 4 and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order, together with the election programme (Annexure P-3), by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner claims to be a voter in category C (Varga-Ga) and his name appears in the final voter list (Annexure-P.1) at serial No. 123. It appears that the election of the respondent Bank became due in the year 1984. On 20-4-1984, respondent-Registrar requested all Collectors in the State of Madhya Pradesh to nominate Deputy Collectors by name as Returning Officers for holding the said election. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, Collector, Mandla, by his order dated 28-4-1984, nominated the respondent No. 4 as Returning Officer for holding the elec...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Arya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP34
P.D. Mulye, J. 1. The petitioner, who is an agriculturist and resident of Gawali Palasia, Tahsii Mhow, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the show cause notice dated 21-4-1982 (Annexure-A) given by respondent No. 3 and direct him not to disturb or deviate from Resolution No. 10 dated 28-3-1978 of respondent No. 4 Society, namely Ambika Aloo Utpadak Vipanan Avam Prakriya Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Gawali Palasia, granting membership to the petitioner and others and not to remove any member from the register of members. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition, may be stated, thus : Respondent No. 4, which is a Co-operative Society is registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner became a Member of the said Society on 28-3-1978, vide Resolution Annexure-R-3, when the Managing Committee of the Society was superseded. On 14-5-1979 the petitioner was also elected as a Director of the Society which functioned ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »