Madhya Pradesh Court September 1988 Judgments
Suresh Chandra JaIn Vs. Dr. Aijaz Ahmad Solat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ323
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of a strip of plot lying in between the houses of the parties. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : -'Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in finding that the open land lying in between the houses of the parties did not belong to the plaintiff and dismissing his claim for grant of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction on that basis ?'2. The plaintiff's case is that he had purchased the house together with appurtenant land as per boundary detailed in the registered-deed dated 22-6-1973 (Ex. P.1), from Hazi Abdul Sattar. The boundary is also shown in the attached map. The suit is in respect of the plot described as 'open yard' on the west side of the said house, and to the east of the house of the defendant Dr. Solat.3. Dr. Solat purchased his house on 18-4-1973 through sale-deed dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsingh Vs. Roopsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989MP273; 1989MPLJ681
R.C. Lohoti, J.The defendant-appellant seeks setting aside of a decree for possession in respect of an agricultural land in a suit based on title though declaration as to title was not prayed for.2. The suit property, an agricultural land bearing survey No. 106 area 15. 32 acres situated at village Shivna of Tahsil Bhikangaon admittedly belongs to the plaintiff-respondent. According to the plaintiff the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff at about 7-8 years prior to the institution of the suit and did not restore the possession to the plaintiff in spite of demand by notice served on 7-6-66. The defendant in his written statement took the plea that in the year 1955 the plaintiff sold the land to the defendant and his brother Manohar for a consideration of Rs. 611/- and delivered possession. A sale-letter (on a piece of plain paper) was executed by the plaintiff which document has been lost because at about two years before the institution of the suit Manohar, who was in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Sushila Singh Vs. Vijay Sanker Shukul
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ607
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This appeal is by plaintiff under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, against an order dated 7-1-1988 granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 (Defendant No. 1) restraining the appellant from interefering with his possession over the ground floor of the suit house, mentioned in the earlier order dated 22-9-1986 of temporary injunction issued against the appellant.2. The plaintiffs suit is for specific performance of contract of sale dated 23-8-1980 and ancillary reliefs against the defendant in respect of suit house together with appurtenant land, 1496, Wright Town, Jabalpur called 'Jai Niwas' (hereinafter called the suit property') on the allegations that the defendant agreed to sell it for a consideration of Rs. 2 lacs. After receiving part consideration of Rs. 50,000/- the defendant executed an agreement on the same date and in part performance of the contract, he delivered vacant possession of the ground floor marked by letters E...
Tag this Judgment!Nishit Kumar Banerjee and anr. Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR830]; (1993)IIILLJ559MP
B.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is Cash-cum-Accounts Clerk in the Bank of India. He was charge-sheeted in February, 1982 and after a departmental enquiry punishment of stoppage of two increments has been imposed. This punishment was imposed upon him on a finding that two charges levelled against him were found proved. An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority and was dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the Employees Union of which the petitioner was the member and the matter was taken up in conciliation. Assistant Labour Commissioner finally submitted his report dt. 11.7.83 (Annexure-L). The appropriate Government which in the present case is Central Government on receipt of this report communicated his decision vide memo. dt. 10.11.1983 (Annexure-M). The petitioners are aggrieved by this order.2. The petitioners have claimed relief of quashing the entire proceedings and the orders ultimately imposing punishment upon the petitioner No. 1. We, however, are not...
Tag this Judgment!Late Mrs. Banoo E. Cowasji (Through Legal Representatives, Mrs. Kalayu ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR234(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this application briefly, are as follows :The late E. Cowasji made a trust of his movable and immovable property by a deed of trust dated September 28, 1960. The beneficiaries under the said trust were Mrs. Banoo Cowasji, Shri Jall Cowasji and his two daughters. Mrs. Banoo Cowasji, by a deed of release dated November 12, 1973, released her right, title and interest in the trust property, in favour of the other three beneficiaries. While framing the assessment of Mrs. Banoo Cowasji to gift-tax under the Act for the assessment year 1974-75, the Gift-tax Officer treated the release by Mrs. Banoo Cowasji as a gift within the meaning of Clause (xii) read with Clause (xxiv) of Section 2 of the Act. The Gift-tax Officer accordingly valued one-fourth share of the assessee in the corpus of the trust and completed the assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Avadhesh Mani Mema Vs. Saroj Amita Mema
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1988
Reported in: I(1990)DMC327
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against judgment and decree dismissing his suit for divorce.2. The plaintiff/husband filed the suit on 1-3-1984 for divorce under Section 13, in the alternative for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1959. By amendment dated 17-8-1984, the plaintiff restricted the petition for divorce only. The plaintiff is a matriculate and a bullion merchant of Narsinghpur. The defendant is a post-graduate resides with her widow mother Smt. Bimla at Kareli. The marriage between the parties took place on 28-4-1983. She came to marital home and lived with him at Narsinghpur for about 3-4 days. Thereafter she returned to her mother's house. Three or four days thereafter, the defendant came to the plaintiff's house in second Bida. This time she remained in the plaintiff's house for 8-10 days. On account of her insistence to return, the defendant was sent to her mother's place. She remained there for a fortnight. After living with...
Tag this Judgment!Vijendrasingh Vs. Mujaffar HussaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC440; AIR1989MP222
K.M. Agrawal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The respondent 3 the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred a cross-objection and has made a prayer for selling aside the entire award.2. It was alleged that on 23-2-1985 at about 10.00 a.m. the appellant was going on his motor bike towards police Line on the Police Line Road, Jhabua. He was on his left side and was going slow. In the meanwhile. Jeep No. MPU 1306 belonging to the respondent 2 Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, driven by the respondent 1 Muzaffar Hussain and insured with the respondent 3 the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. came in great speed from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike of the appellant, resulting in fracture below his right knee: He accordingly filed a claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Princess Usha Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(MP)143; [1989]176ITR227(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.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 right in holding that the assessee had no right to appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the levy of interest under Section 220(2) in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75?' 2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : In respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, notices of demand were served on the assessee under Section 156 of the Act for payment of the amount of tax found payable by the assessee. As the assessee failed to pay the amount demanded, the Income-tax Officer levied interest under Section 220(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Officer le...
Tag this Judgment!Nathulal (Decd. Through Omprakash) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR249(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.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 : Nathulal Hiralal was assessed in the status of an individual up to the assessment year 1980-81. In the accounting year 1979-80, the assessee and his adopted son effected a partition of the joint family property. Before Nathulal could file a return for the assessment year 1981-82, he expired on April 9, 1981, and his son, Omprakash, filed a return for the assessment year 1981-82 in the status of Hindu undivided family and also claimed recognition of the complete partition alleged to have taken place on November 7, 1980. The Income-tax Officer, after making necessary enquiry, passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act inthe status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer also passed a separate order under Section 171 of the Act r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalani Asbestos Cement Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR346(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 142 of 1986 and 144 of 1986. 2. These are applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The material facts giving rise to these applications, briefly, are as follows : For the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84, the Income-tax Officer disallowed under Section 40A(8) of the Act, interest paid by the assessee to certain parties. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax upheld the order passed by the Income-tax Officer disallowing payment of interest to some persons. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest under Section 40A(8) of the Act was called for. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought reference, but as the application made by the Revenue in that behalf was rejected, the Revenue has filed this application. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »