Madhya Pradesh Court October 1986 Judgments
Smt. Usha Devi (Legal Representative of H.H. Maharaja Yeshwantrao Holk ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(MP)48; [1988]169ITR76(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 5(2) of the Wealth-tax (Exemption of Heirloom Jewellery of Rulers) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the order dated December 12, 1980, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in pursuance of Rule 5(2) of the Rules and the demand notices collectively marked as annexure 'G', issued in that behalf by respondent No. 1, the Wealth-tax Officer.2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :On an application made by H. H. Maharaja Yeshwantrao Holkar, the Ruler of the erstwhile Holkar State, the Secretary of the Central Board of Revenue, by his letter dated September 19, 1959 (annexure 'A'), conveyed to H. H. Maharaja Yeshwantrao Holkar, the approval of the Central Board of Revenue to the recognition of certain articles of jewellery specified in that letter as heirloom jewellery for the purpose of Claus...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra and ors. Vs. Rameshwardayal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: AIR1987MP110
T.N. Singh, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal, who lost in both the Courts below. The short point urged in this appeal is that the defendant's right to fair trial having been infringed the decrees of both Courts below are rendered nullity by Article 39A of the Constitution.2. The plaintiff based his suit on a Hundi for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. Defendant's case was that he had not borrowed any amount on the basis of that Hundi but admitted that the amount, which was kept in deposit with him was 'black money' and to evidence the deposit the Hundi was executed. It was his further case that the amount was returned by him and the plaintiff was not entitled therefore to claim decree against him for any sum or any account. Shri Tomar, who appears for the defendant-appellant, has made a short submission drawing my attention to certain peculiar but crucial features of the case,3. the fact of the matter which is admitted at the Bar is that after the plaintiff-respondent closed his evidence and defen...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Vs. Deonarayan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: AIR1987MP85
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This Miscellaneous appeal arises out of order dt. 12-2-1986, refusing ad interim injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff-appellant restraining defendant-respondent 1 from transferring his 1/9th share in the suit land to defendant 10 and restraining defendant-respondents 2 to 9 from consenting to any such transfer or parting with its possession or altering the situation of the suit land as it existed on the date of the suit, seeking further injunction to restrain the defendant 10 from altering or changing or making construction on the 1/9th share of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff and also praying for a direction to maintain the status quo.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant, who is a minor, through his natural guardian the mother, Laxmibai, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dt. 14-12-1982, entered into by defendant 1 to sell the 1/9th share of the suit land, bearing survey No. 3842, situated in Kasba Ujjain, f...
Tag this Judgment!Sugrabai Vs. Bahadursingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC328
K.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 is directed against the award made by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 38 of 1982.2. Circumstances giving rise to this petition are these. According to the appellant her deceased husband Noor Mohammad aged 56 years was involved in a jeep accident on 19-1-82 and sustained injuries. He succumbed to the same on 4-2-82. The jeep belongs to the Government of Madhya Pradesh. According to the applicant, the accident was due to the negligence of the respondent No. 1 BahaJursingh who was driving the accident jeep.3. In the claim petition it was stated that the jeep had dashed against Noor Mohammad from behind. A claim for Rs. 50,000/- was laid.4. Respondents contested the claim petition denying the averments made therein.5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that it has not been pr...
Tag this Judgment!Harishchandra and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1724
M.D. Bhatt, J.1. This is the appeal of the two accused Harish Chandra and Rajendra, who on their conviction under Section 306 of the I.P.C. have each been sentenced to three years' R.I.2. The appellants-accused Harishchandra and Rajendra are brothers, the latter being younger in age. Mst. Minabai (now deceased), who was the daughter of P.W. 2 Bhikamchand and P.W. 6 Mst. Bhagwati, resident of village Bhategaon, had been married to Rajendra on 20-2-1981. Mst. Minabai had been living with her husband, her in-laws and other members of the family on the second floor of their house situate in Morai Mohalla Indore, and some tenants including P.W. 4 Satishkumar were occupants of other floors of the house. On 17-10-1982, Mst. Mina was found dead in her room of the second floor of the house with hundred per cent burns. Tenants and Ors. were the first to discover this fact; and the appellants-accused who were away from the house at the relevant time had reached the place just some time after.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Padmabai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1573
M. D. Bhatt, J.1. This is the appeal of the accused Mst. Padmabai who on her conviction under Section 306 of the I.P.C. for abetting the suicide of her daughter-in-law Puja alias Sunita, has been sentenced to three years' R.I.2. The appellant-accused Padmabai, her husband Ishwardas and son Raju alias Rajendrakumar had been put up for trial under Section 306 of the I.P.C. in the trial Court The trial had abetted against Ishwardas since he had died during the course of trial. Raju the husband of the deceased, for want of evidence was acquitted by the trial Court, and it is only the deceased's mother-in-law viz. the present appellant-accused who has been convicted and sentenced to the extent as stated at the outset.3. Mst. Sunita, now deceased, was married to Raju on 11-5-1980 at Ujjain, where both of them along with their parents did live together. Out of the lawful wed-lock, a daughter was born in September, 1981. It was on 27-4-1982 at the house of the in-laws that Mst. Sunita, at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram Bendil Vs. Rashmi Parihar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1986
Reported in: 1987MPLJ410
K.M. Agarwal, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the returned candidate is directed against an order passed on 18-8-1986 by the learned single Judge of this Court in a pending Election Petition No. 23 of 1985.2. The respondent No. 1 challenged the election of the appellant as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from No. 16, Lashkar East constituency in the election held in 1985 onthe ground of corrupt practice. After service of notice of the election petition, the appellant filed his return and, inter alia, raised an objection about the maintainability of the petition on the ground that 'the affidavit is an integeral part of the petition and a true copy thereof duly attested under the signatures of the petitioner has to be served on the respondents. But the petitioner has not served a true copy of the affidavit on the Answering Respondent. As such the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily under Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Act.' On the ...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Jaiswal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1987MPLJ308
B.C. Varma, J. 1. The order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 2944 of 1984 (Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and Anr.), Miscellaneous Petition No. 1319 of 1985 (Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and Anr.), Miscellenous Petition No. 3784 of 1985 (Santosh Kumar Jain v. State of M.P. and Anr.), Miscellaneous Petition No. 3785 of 1985 (Vishwaraj Singh Thakur v. State of M.P. and Anr.), Miscellaneous Petition No. 5 of 1986 Sanjay Singh Parihar & Brothers v. State of M.P. and 2 others), Miscellaneous Petition No. 68 of .1986 (Pyaralal v. State of M.P. and Anr.), and Miscellaneous Petition No. 977 of 1986' (Sanjay Singh Parihar and 2 others v. State of M.P. and 5 others) as in all common question of law arises for decision. 2. The petitioner in all these cases are exhibiters of films through Video Cassette Recorder (V.C.R.). They have been issueddue licenses to exhibit films through V.C.R. on a television screen under Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Premlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ204
ORDERC.P. Sen, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench for consideration :-Whether the extra-judicial confession made by an accused to the Kotwar is admissible in evidenceThe Division Bench found that there is some controversy in the decisions of this Court regarding the admissibility of a statement made by an accused person to the Kotwar having authority to arrest an accused person and the controversy should be set at rest as the only evidence available in the case is the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the Kotwar in the presence of others.2. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. The word 'Police Officer' has not been defined in the Act. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram : [1962]3SCR338 has held as i under:The Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861), is described as an Act for the regulation of police, and is thu...
Tag this Judgment!Tajibai and ors. Vs. Hasan Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: AIR1987MP219
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal, arising out of the Appellate Judgment and Decree dated 22nd August, 1978, passed by the District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 44-A of 1976, thereby, confirming the trial Court's Judgment and Decree with slight modification in annual mesne profits, which has been reduced from 1500/- to 1000/-.2. Plaintiff/respondent brought a suit, based on title for possession of agricultural land, bearing survey Nos. 990 and 1000,admeasunng 5.662 Hactares, situated in village Barkheda Gangasa, tahsil Garoth, District Mandsaur. The original defendant Hajari Khan, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff/respondent's mother to purchase the suit land. It was in pursuance to this agreement that he continued to remain in possession of the suit land and cultivate the same on 'adh-batai'.3. On 21-8-1941, Hajari Khan, moved an application (Exhibit P-3) before the competent revenue authority, known as 'Suba', praying for permission for sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »