Madhya Pradesh Court March 1985 Judgments
Hargovind Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP63
C.P. Sen, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is challenging the order dt. 17-2-1984 of the State Government passed under Section 328(6)(b) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 appointing a committee consisting of respondents 5 to 11 to exercise all powers and duties of the Municipal Council, Hatta of District Damoh, whose term had expired on 31-3-1979. 2. The Municipal Council, Hatta originally consisted of 12 elected and 3 co-opted members. Out of elected councillors, six were from the ruling party and the remaining six from the Nagrik Morcha, including the petitioner. Out of the three co-opted members, one was co-opted by each party and regarding the third member there was a toss and a member from the ruling party was co-opted. So the ruling party had a majority of one vote only and respondent No. 5 was elected President of the council. 3. The petitioner is a resident of Hatta and has been a councillor in the Municipal Council Hatta...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Bai Vs. Sitaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP218
1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (1955) has been preferred by the wife/appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-9-1980, passed by the District Judge, Gwalior.2. Parties are Hindu, married at Lashkar on 23-9-1961. Wife/applicant filed an application for divorce from the respondent husband, on the ground that she was below 15 years of age, when married, but before she became 18 years of age, she repudiated her marriage and hence, a decree for divorce be granted under Section 13(2)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as Act). Respondent husband, no doubt, denied and contested the prayer. Trial Court answered the relevant issues in favour of the respondent husband and dismissed the application of the appellant with costs.3. The case of the appellant in the petition was that her date of birth is 23-1-1961 and she was married on 21-4-1975, hence she was of merely 14 years 11 months and 8 days of age on the date of marriage. After...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. Bidi Leaves Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: [1985]154ITR182(MP)
Oza, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for answering the questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the question of status afresh when the assessee did not file a separate appeal against the refusal of the registration to the firm ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding two issues, namely, the question of status and disallowances of expenses in one appeal filed by the assessee ?' 2. The facts stated by the Tribunal are that the assessee-firm earns its income from sale of tendu leaves. According to the ITO, the firm did not file a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuation of the benefits of registration for the assessment year in question. When called upon to explain why declaration was not furnished, the assessee filed a duplicate Form No. 12 duly signed by all t...
Tag this Judgment!Panchayat Karmachari Sangh and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: 1985MPLJ320
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. The present petition is no exception to an unfortunate state of affairs, which as the learned Government Advocate puts it despite all efforts on their part return could not be filed and the petition is to be heard and decided without any return. Matters listed for final hearing are invariably accompanied with requests for adjournments for filing of returns and even after having granted opportunities at such a late stage, a state of helplessness is expressed by the Government Advocates appearing, who at times also change, but the grievance remains the same that despite intimations the officers concerned do not respond, and at times even urgent calls made by the Government Advocates go unattended. Such state of affairs hardly commends anybody. 'Delay' is the crying need of the hour. Anxiety for expeditious disposal of cases is contrasted with ever-standing complaint of delay. The Court is left with no choice but to proceed in the matter even in absence of returns fo...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila Bai Vs. Prem Narayan Rai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP225; 1986MPLJ114
Rampal Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the aggrieved wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the order of the District Judge, Gwalior, dated 29-2-1980.2. On 9-10-1978, wife-appellant filed anapplication under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act thereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of the District Judge, Gwalior and prayed for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The facts disclosed in this application are that she was married to the respondent on 28th June, 1972 and after marriage, both lived together. During this period, she was mistreated and assaulted by the respondent and ultimately, on 1st May, 1977, the respondent abandoned her in her parental home with the instructions not to send her to him, unless called for. Several letters were sent by her parents to respondent, requesting to take the appellant back, but the requests remained unanswered.3. Respondent, in his reply, admitted the factum of marriage, but repudiated the allegat...
Tag this Judgment!Balkishan and ors. Vs. Nagarpalika, Morena and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP70
Ram Pal Singh, J. 1. These elevenappellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appealunder Section 100 of the Civil P.C. against thejudgment and decree passed by the FirstAdditional District Judge, Morena, dated 5-7-1973 in Civil Appeal No. 37-A/71.2. Present appellants and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and deceased Maniram filed a suit against respondent No. 1 Nagarpalika, Morena, for declaration and permanent injunction, in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Morena. Plaintiffs averred in their plaint that the suit land shown as C D E F by red lines in the plaint map, belonged to them as it was part of survey number 878. Plaint map contains three plots, survey Nos. 878, 879 and 880. Accordingto the plaintiffs, the C D E F red marked portion is part of survey No. 878 and respondent No. 1 auctioned this portion. Plaintiffs, after serving notice under Section 200 of the Municipalities Act, filed the suit.3. Respondent/defendant No. 1 denied the case of plaintiffs and claimed that the area shown in r...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ429
R.K. Varma, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of externment of the petitioner passed by the District Magistrate of District Dhar passed on 16-4-1984 Annexure H to the petition and the appellate order passed by the State Government Home Department on 4-8-1984 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on merits.2. The action under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') was taken on the application by the Superintendent of Police, District Dhar against the petitioner and three eithers, viz., Vijay Kumar, Badri and Chhotu on the allegation that having regard to the difficulties created in maintenance of peace and security in public as a result of antisocial activities of the petitioner, the action of externment of the petitioner and other three members from district Dhar and nearby District was called for. Along with the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Pyarchand Keshrimal Porwal Private Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Flyi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC381(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J.1. The petitioner which is a private limited company has filed this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and the Rules framed thereunder.2. According to the petitioner the company carries on business of manufacture and sale of bidi and has its manufacturing centres in the States of Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Initially this business was conducted by a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Pyarchand Keshrimal Porwal, which was constituted on or about Diwali, 1963. Later, when the petitioner-company was constituted, it took over the said business of the partnership firm from 20th February, 1978, and the said business since then is being conducted by the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company has no place of business in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and has appointed M/s. Bulldog Bidi Distributors & Company of Kampti as its selling agents for the State of M.P. by and unde...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sitaldas Gyanchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR43(MP)
Sohani, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred to this court the following question of law for its opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had fulfilled all the requirements laid down in Section 80RRA and was entitled to the relief granted by Section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act? '2. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly, are as follows:The assessee is an individual. In the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80RRA of the Act on the ground that in the relevant accounting year, the assessee, who was a technician, had received remuneration from a company. The Income-tax Officer rejected that claim. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›