Madhya Pradesh Court August 1986 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.
Kishanlal Moolchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(MP)285; [1987]166ITR449(MP)
G.G. 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 the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the whole of the income from the aforesaid private trust was assessable in the hands of the assessee as the income of the assessee ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:3. The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual and the assessment year in question is 1971-72, the accounting year for which ended on Diwali, 1970. The assessee and his father had constituted a Hindu undivided family. A partition was effected between the assessee and his father on June 19, 1961, and a memorandum of partition was executed on July 9, 1961. As a result of that partition, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 50,...
Khandelwal Oil Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR835(MP)
Sohani, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly, are as follows :The petitioner is a firm registered under the Partnership Act and under the Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment year 1974-75, for which the accounting year ended on Diwali, 1973, In respect of the assessment year in question, the petitioner filed its return on June 30, 1974, disclosing a total income of Rs. 55,702. While proceedings for assessment were pending before the Income-tax Officer, on December 31, 1975, the petitioner made a disclosure of income of Rs. 31, 600, in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975. The Income-tax Officer by his order of assessment dated September 23, 1977, made an addition of Rs. 33,566 to the disclosed income of the petitioner. On appeal, it was contended by the asses...
Girjashankar Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1361
G.G. Sohani, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has averred that on 14-10-1985, he came to know that an order of externment was passed against him. The petitioner contends that he was not given any notice to show cause before the order of externment was passed. In the ' return, it is stated that as the petitioner was absconding, a notice was affixed on 10-10-j 1985 to the outer part of the house of the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed; that the petitioner was directed to submit his reply on 14-10-1985 and that as the petitioner did not appear on 14-10-1985, the Additional District Magistrate, Indore, passed an order on 14-10-1985 under Section 12 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not given any reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regardin...
Prabhunarayan and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ339
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 10-1-83 passed by Shri S. R. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Manawar Dist. Dhar, in Cri. Case No. 5/83.2. Facts giving rise to the petition are these. The petitioners were arrested by Gandhwani Police, Dist. Dhar on 10-1-83 an application for bail was moved before the learned Magistrate. During the same day at 1.45 p.m. the petitioners, without handcuffs, were produced by the police, before the Court. Police Constable Bang Bahadur who was also to appear as a witness, submitted that he had brought the petitioners. Thereupon the learned Magistrate stating that one of the offences (Under Section 506 Part II, IPC) is non-bailable, condemned the police for not producing the petitioners in proper custody and characterised the action as discriminatory. The learned Magistrate holding that the petitioners were not produced in proper custody refused to consider the bail application till the petitioners wer...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Kumari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC5
G.G. Sohani, J.1. The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 55, 56 and 58, all of 1983 ; and Civil Revisions Nos. 853, 1041, 1045, 1049 and 1058 of 1983.2. The material facts giving rise to these appeals and revisions, briefly, are as follows:On 29-8-1978, truck bearing registration No. RJB 779, owned by respondent Wardhaman and driven by deceased Ramjankhan, fell into the river between Dohad and Kushalgarh while crossing a bridge. As a result of that accident, Mahendra kumar, whose goods were being carried in the truck, succumbed to the injuries caused to him in that accident. The legal representatives of deceased Mahendra Kumar submitted an application (Claim Case No. 6 of 1979) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, claiming compensation for the death of Mahedra Kumar, alleged to have been caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by ceased Ramjankhan. As the truck was insured with the National Insurance Compan...
Chhabda Bus Service Sendhwa Vs. Rang Pancham and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC552
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This it an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the offending vehicle against the award of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent No. 1. The respondent-Insurance Company has filed the cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. On 11-10-1980 at about 7-30 A.M. bus MPN 7123 while it was driven by respondent No. 2 Jagdish, violently dashed against respondent No. 1 as a result of which he sustained fractures of both the legs and injuries on other parts of the body. Despite adequate treatment the fractures could not heal up properly and therefore, he is permanently disabled. He claimed Rs. 31,000/- as compensation pecuniary and non-pecuniary both. Respondent No. 2 driver remained ex-parte. The appellant/owner submitted that the bus was at the relevant time driven by Jamin alias Mohd. Ishaq and not by respondent No. 2. It also denied that there was rash and negligent driving. According to it, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›