Madhya Pradesh Court August 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anant Singh and anr. Vs. the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP65
C.P. Sen, J.1. By this Order M.P. No. 1575 of 1984 Pritamsing v. Shri Kunjbihari Lal Guru & others is also disposed of. In the first petition the election of Shri Dharamchand Jain and Shri Kunjbihari Lal Guru as Directors of the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd is under challenge and also rejection of the nomination paper of petitioner No. 2 Hanuman Prasad Pathak for election as Director while in the second petition eligibility of Kunjbihari Lal Guru as President of the said Bank is under challenge.2. The District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. is a Central Co-operative Society as defined by Section 2(c-1) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. I960. Several primary cooperative societies in the Damoh district are the members of the Bank. There are resource Societies of different categories which form group d. There are Marketing societies which form group [k- and there are also one group of other societies which form group x- There are 7 blocks in the Bank and from each block 2 ...
Bankimchandra Vs. Radhakishan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP10
ORDERG.L. Oza, Ag. C.J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against an order passed by Second Civil Judge Class II, Indore dt. 6-2-1984 wherein the learned Judge allowed an application submitted by the non-applicant-plaintiff for withdrawal of the ground under Section 12(1)(e) seeking permission to file a suit on that ground before the Rent Controller in accordance with the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1981 (Act No. 27 of 1983). Apparently this application was made under Section 12 of that Act and the learned Judge by the impugned order only said ihat the application is allowed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in this application prayer in made for withdrawal of the ground under Section 12(1)(e) whereas in fact in the suit itself there is no ground under Section 12(1)(e) but there is a ground under Section 12(1)(f). It was also contended that in fact the suit is filed on various grounds. Section 12(1)(f) is one of them and, therefore...
Liyakat Ali Vs. Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1984MP170
Oza, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a reference made to this Bench by one of us for answering the question :'Whether the provisions of Rule 66 (6) (iv), M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, operate as a bar to an appeal under Section 77 and revision under Section 80 M. P. Cooperative Societies Act?'The learned single Judge while making the reference has referred to two decisions of this Court, both Division Bench decisions, in which the question has been considered. In one of them, i.e. the decision in Misc. Petn. No. 131 of l971 (Sirajratan v. The Joint Registrar. Co-operative Societies. M. P., decided on 2-2-1972 a Division Bench held that Rule 66 (6) (iv) will not comein the way of revisional jurisdiction under Section 80. M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, as it was held in that judgment that the revisional powers under Section 80 have been conferred under the Act itself and the rules framed under the Act cannot override (he provisions of the Act. The other Division Bench decision to whic...
Gulab Bai Vs. Mangu and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP138
G.G. Sohani, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs title to a parcel of agricultural land situated at village Jhadwasa Khurd, Tehsil and District Ratlam, and for its possession. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that the plaintiff was 'Bhumiswami' of the suit land; that the plaintiff being a widow had let out that suit land to one Dharma; but the defendants, who are the legal representatives of deceased Dharma, were denying the title of the plaintiff and refused to deliver possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Hence, on 6-9-1965, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration of her title to the suit land and for its possession. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the suit land belonged to Dharma, who had mortgaged it with the plaintiff and that after redemption, the defendants had become entitled to the suit Sand. The trial Court found that the title to the suit land vested in the ...
Khalolullah Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ415
B.C. Varma, J.1. Appellant Khalilullah is alleged to have committed the murder of one Rashidullah on 18-9-1980. After due investigation, the police filed the challan before the Magistrate for an action Under Section 209, Cri.P.C for commitment of the case to court of Session the offence being triable exclusively by Court of Session. The learned Magistrate by order dt. 28-1-1981 committed the case to the Court of Session and forwarded the papers accordingly to that Court. The Sessions Judge, however, took up the matter only on 17-2-1981 and proceeded to try the appellant. Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (Act No. 15 of 1970) was made applicable to Raisen district with effect from 15-2-1981, vide notification No. D. 739-6835-XXVI-81, dt. 5th Feb. 1981, and in exercise of powers Under Section 4 of that Act, a Juvenile Court was constituted for Raisen district. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and by judgment dt 24-6-1981 convicted him Und...
Sethi Wine Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR832(MP)
Mulye, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in upholding the action of the ITO under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) That whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in not quashing the notice under Section 148 on the ground of limitation ' 2. The facts of the case as per the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal may be stated thus : A deed of partnership was executed on June 23, 1961, in the name of M/s. Pagoda Hotel & Restaurant, in which Shri Ramlal Sethi, Vikramjit Sethi, Inderjit Sethi were equal partners with equal shares. The said partnership was made effective from June 16, 1961. This firm had two activities, of which one was of running hotel a...
Jayantilal Kishorilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(MP)93; [1985]154ITR821(MP)
Mulye, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has made this reference at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court regarding the question of law referred to by them, which is reproduced below :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the loss which lay on him when the assessee had produced the certificate of the excise authorities which supported the assessee's claim for loss ?'2. The facts giving rise to this petition as per the statement of the case may be stated, in brief, thus. The assessee is an individual. He derives income from liquor contracts and the share income from M/s. Kishorilal Ramlal. The assessee had taken liquor contracts for Rs. 2,06,000. In the year under consideration, he filed a return on February 25, 1977, declaring a loss of Rs. 500. The reasons for the...
Smt. Sunderbai and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1984MP146
ORDER1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners praying for quashing of the order dated 25-9-1982 (Annexure VII) passed by respondent No. 4. 2. The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Gokulchand Gupta who died on 12-5-1981 during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No. 4 the appellate authority and were brought on record as such. 3. Shri I. S. Rathore, Deputy Collector was appointed as competent authority for Rajgarh Biora and Khilchipur Tahsils by the Collector, Rajgarh under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) vide Notification dated 21-2-1975. Proceedings before Shri Rathore commenced on 28-3-1975. It is also not in dispute that by the subsequent Notification dated 17-7-1975 the Collector, Rajgarh appointed Shri S. P. Sonkia, Deputy Collector as the competent authorityunder the Adhiniyam fo...
Ramsingh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1984MP151
P.D. Mulye, J. 1. The petitioner who was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Semlya Chau in 1978, has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which arises out of the provisions of Section 27 of the Panchayat Act, 1962, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch and a recovery of Rs. 18,383.77 p. is ordered against him. 2. The petitioner's case, in brief, may be stated thus : That the petitioner is an active worker and leader in his area of Bhartiya Janta Party and was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Semlya Chau in 1978; that when the Congress (I) came to power in M. P. in the general elections held in 1980, it started wreaking vengeance on workers and leaders of Bhartiya Janta Party and adopted all means fair or foul to eject workers, and leaders of Bhartiya Janta Party from all positions of power and elective posts. Further according to the petitioner the respondent No. 2 Collector, Indore actively helped the Ruling Party i...
Kalooram and anr. Vs. Mangilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1984MP147
G.G. Sohani, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a portion of -suit house situated at Neem Chowk, Ratlam. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that Jeetmal, father of the plaintiff, and Manakchand, father of the defendants, were brothers and members of a Joint Hindu Family and that on 10th December 1922, a partition was effected between the members of the joint Hindu family, as a result of which, a portion of the suit house came into possession of the plaintiffs father. It was further averred that the suit properly was then let out to one Pannalal Sanwara and after his death the leased premises were in occupation of his son Mangilal Sanwara, who vacated the leased premises, which was then locked by the plaintiffs father. It was further averred that on 15th July 1949, defendant No. 1 unlawfully broke open the lock and forcibly took possession of the suit property. The plaintiff instituted the suit on 6-5-1961 for recovery of possession of the su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›