Madhya Pradesh Court December 1986 Judgments
Janki Grah Nirman Co-operative Housing Society, Jabalpur Vs. Collector ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: 1987MPLJ456
C.P. Sen, J.1. This is a petition underArts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution forquashing the notice of the Collector, JabalpurDA 27-5-1986/29-5-1986/5-8-1986 whereby thecoloniser's licence of the petitioner has beensuspended and a show cause notice given forcancellation of the licence on the ground ofsuppression of the fact that the petitionerhad not disclosed in his application that thedisputed land was exempted from Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 foragricultural purposes only and it wasmentioned therein that in case the land is tobe used for any other purpose, the provisionsof the Act would be attracted if and whencolonisation is taken on hand and no suchsanction was obtained. 2. The petitioner is a registered Cooperative Housing Society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The facts not in dispute are that the petitioner purchased Kh. No. 185/2 situate in village Laxmipur, tahsil and district Jabalpur by registered sale deed D/- 27-5-1983 from Ji...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sudesh Mehta Vs. Bhagchand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1988MP270; 1987MPLJ81
B.M. Lal, J. 1. Respondents Bhagchand and Mohanlal are the tenants of Shrimati Sudesh Mehta, in respect of shop No. 4 situate at Kududand (near R.T.O. Office), Bilaspur on a monthly rent of Rs. 46/-. The respondents tenants have filed an application under Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for taking suitable action against the landlady who has closed, the door of the back side of the suit premises. The Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur as well as the IV Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, found the landlady guilty of withholding the essential supply or service and has directed the landlady to make arrangement for keeping the back door open, failing which the tenants shall get the door opened with the police help and the costs incurred in that behalf be deducted from rent amount. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the injury as reported by the tenants, does not come within the purview of...
Tag this Judgment!Dukalhinbai and anr. Vs. R.V. Paranjpe and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC246
B.M. Lal, J.1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the death occurred during the course of employment on account of cardiac failure the deceased employee's dependents are entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act ?2. One Itwari died on 19-10-79 on which day he was on duty and discharging his work to unload slag from wagons by shovel and worked for two hours. The deceased was getting Rs. 20/- per day as wages and according to the calculations, the dependents are entitled for compensation Rs. 21,600/- under the Workmen's Compensation Act.3. After the death of Itwari, the applicants who are his widow and son applied for the compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Durg who by the impugned order dated 9-6-81, rejected the application for compensation on the ground inter alia that the death so caused was due to heart failure, during the course of employment and thus, deceased Itwari did not suffer personal injury by accident and ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1481
ORDERK.K. Verma, J.1. This is a revision from the judgment dt. 14th July 1983 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Appeal No. 42/81, dismissing that appeal preferred by the applicant against an order of conviction under Section 408 I.P.C. carrying one year's rigorous imprisonment therewith, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia on 28-74981 in regular Criminal Case No. 750/77.2. The trial was however on a charge under Section 409 of the I.P.C. in the following terms:That you, between the 2nd day of March, 1975 to 28th of April, 1975, at village Jhujharpur (P.S. Indargarh), as Chairman of the Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Jhujharpur, and a banker, and public servant, and in such capacity being entrusted with certain property, to (Illegible) a sum of Rs. 5,845/- committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 2,936/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409 of the I.P.C.3. The Magistrate who decided the case held in paras 6, 7 and 8 of his judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Vs. Suresh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987MP178
ORDERK.L. Shrivastva, J.1. This order shall dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (for short 'the Code').2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are these. The non-applicant Sureshkumar on 14-5-86, during summer vacation, filed the Civil Suit No. 66-A of 1986 in the Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Class I, Ratlam against the petitioner and others for permanent injunction claiming that in respect of the transport contract in his favour no other contract be given to any other person for a period of two years. On his application, an ex parte temporary injunction was granted on 14-5-86. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Shri Durve, 2nd Additional Judge to the District Judge. Ratlam.3. Non-applicant Sureshkumar was granted several adjournments in the appeal and it was ultimately on 14-8-86 that the learned Judge observing that jurisdiction in disposing of appeal agains...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Vs. State of M.P. and Two ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC82(MP)
V.D. Gyani, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 23rd November, 1977, passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil 1st Appeal No. 36-A of 1976.2. Undisputed facts are that house No. 3, situated on Warehouse Road, Indore was owned by Chandrabai, who was one of the partners of M/s. Hind Union Traders. From 1st February, 1965, she became the sole owner and proprietor of M/s. Hind Union Traders. Plaintiff-appellant purchased the suit house for Rs. 9,000 by a registered sale deed No. 1130, dated 22nd May, 1971, and filed the suit on the ground that the house was wrongly attached and sold by the respondent-State in recovery proceedings in respect of recovery of Rs. 18,810 against M/s. Hind Union Traders. He, therefore, prayed for a declaratory decree that he was the sole owner of the house and the same was not liable to be attached or sold in sales tax recovery proceedings.3. The trial court dismissed the suit and the first appellate court di...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1986
Reported in: [1990]183ITR174(MP)
By this reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the question sought to be referred is as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from commission, subsidy from Government, admission fee, incidental charges, financial penalties and miscellaneous income is exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'The Tribunal, while rejecting the reference application under section 256(1) of the Act, has mentioned as follows:'An identical question was referred to this Honble court in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1979-80 and their Lordships of the M. P. High Court in Miscellaneous Case No. 120 of 1982, decided the same on July 8, 1983, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue which is reported in : [1984]149ITR438(MP) (CIT v. Dhar Central Co-operative Bank). In ITA No. 1279, the Tribunal had simp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›