Madhya Pradesh Court December 1984 Judgments
Ram Bihari Lal Vs. Dr. J.N. Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: 1985MPLJ288
C.P. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of the single Bench of this Court dismissing their claim by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court for damages against the defendant for his rash and negligent act in causing death of deceased Kantidevi, by removing her gall bladder during operations.2. At the relevant time in the year 1958 plaintiff No. 1 Ram Bihari Lal was Collector, Shahdol and was aged about 40 years. His wife deceased Kantidevi was aged 32 years. She had given delivery of 7th child 41/2 months prior to her death. Plaintiffs 2 to 8 were minors at that time. Defendant Dr. J. N. Shrivastava was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon Grade-1 and was in-charge of the Sohagpur Government Hospital at Shahdol. It was 28 bedded hospital. Although Shahdol was the district headquarters, district hospital was at Umaria and Dr. L. K. Mishta (P. W. 7) was the District Medical Officer. On the night in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vippy Solvex Product Private Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(MP)44; [1986]159ITR487(MP)
G.L. Oza, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for answering the question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax directing the Income-tax Officer todisallow the assessee's claim for weighted deduction on interest amounting to Rs. 3,65,875 paid to the Bank of Maharashtra under Section 35B(1)(b)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was correct in law and the Tribunal was in error in vacating it ' 2. The facts stated in the reference by the Tribunal are that the assessee is a private limited company and manufactures deoiled cakes. For the previous year relevant to the assessment year in dispute, the assessee filed a return on June 29, 1976. Subsequently, it filed a revised return on February 7, 1979, declaring a loss of Rs. 4,80,202. In the computation filed with the return, it claimed depreciation and development rebate at Rs. 1,88,448. Thereafter, it further claimed a sum of Rs. 1,57,653 a...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector Nagar Palika Vs. Davilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ726
R.K. Vijayvargia, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this reference made by one of us (K.L. Shriyastava, J) is whether the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act') and of Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') are mandatory or directory.2. The material facts are these : On 5-3- 1978 the Food Inspector, Nagar Palika Mandsaur purchased milk from the respondent as sample for analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who on analysis found that the sample was adulterated. The report of the public Analyst is dt. 13-3-1978. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent on 24-4-78.3. The trial Magistrate held that the milk purchased by the Food Inspector from the respondent was adulterated and convicted the respondent of the offence Under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act. On appeal by the respondent the Additional Sessions Judge acq...
Tag this Judgment!Jorawarsingh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1131; 1985MPLJ503
V.D. Gyani, J.1. The petitioner, who is a resident of village Noghani, tahsil Sitamau, district Mandsaur, and an ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat by this petition challenges the order dated 22-2-1983 (Annexure-1), passed by the respondent No. 2 the Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur, ordering open surveillance against the petitioner. The respondents have not disputed the order passed, but unfortunately have not chosen to place the same before this Court.2. The petitioner's contention is that the action of the respondents in placing, the petitioner under surveillance, taking of his photographs and finger-prints by the police officials is not merely against law but a violation of his fundamental rights, inasmuch as it places restrictions on the petitioner's freedom of movement guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner also contends that as a result of the surveillance order passed by the respondents the petitioner has to report his movements to the police station and attend and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Maharaja Bahadur Singh Kasliwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: [1990]183ITR126(MP)
1. Heard Shri R. C. Mukati, for the petitioner and Shri A. K. Chitley, for the respondents, on the question of admission.2. Notice was issued to show cause as to why this petition should not be admitted. Learned counsel for the respondents is served and Shri Chitley appears for them. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter be finally heard and disposed of.3. It appears that the assessee has interest in two trusts, Sir Hukamchand Trust and Lady Kanchanbai Trust. The question that arose was whether he had this interest in his individual capacity or as representing the Hindu undivided family. It appears that, earlier, this court, in ML C. C. No. 240/78, of the same assessee, took the view that the interest that he had was of only Hindu undivided family and not in his individual capacity. Against this judgment of this court, the matter is pending in the Supreme Court.4. The Tribunal, in the order under question, has followed the decision of this court and taken the view that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamleshkumar Chhabra Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP130; 1985MPLJ72
V.D. Gyani, J.1. This petition poses a problem as to how best suitable balance should be struck between the statutory executive power and legal protection to the citizen. Modern Government demands discretionary powers, which are as wide as they are numerous. It is the attitude of the Courts to such seemingly unbounden powers, which is perhaps the most revealing feature of an executive administrative authority. In this connection the first requirement is the recognition that all power has legal limits. The next requirement, no less vital is that Courts should draw those limits in a way which strikes the most suitable balance between executive power and legal protection extended and available to the citizen. It has beenupon public authorities is not absolute, even within its apparent boundaries, but is subject to general legal limitations. It goes without saying that Legislature can never be taken to have intended to give any statutory body or authority a power to act in bad faith or a p...
Tag this Judgment!Patharibai and ors. Vs. Firulalji Shankarlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas482(MP); 1985MPLJ34
R.K. Varma, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 179 of 1981 (Lalji Shankarlal v. Smt. Pathribai and Ors.).2. This is an appeal filed by claimants against the Award dated 21-2-1981 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dewas praying for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded. Another appeal Misc. Appeal No. 179 of 1981 has been filed by M/s. Lalji Shankar, who is joined in the present appeal as respondent No. 1 being the owner of the truck, against whom an award of Rs. 20,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimants, legal heirs of deceased Karansingh who died as a result of the motor-truck accident.3. The facts leading to this appeal briefly stated are as follows : --ck No. MPO 1994, on the date of the accident i.e. 15-6-1977, was carrying deceased Karansingh, a labourer (Mammal) along with other labourers (Hammals) employed by Thakur Sawdekar & Co., Khategaon respondent No. 4 to Nasrullaganj to lift bags of Temproo leaves on the truck f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›