Madhya Pradesh Court January 1989 Judgments
Sampath Reddy Vs. Gudda Meddi Suchi Venkatamma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC313
K. Ramaswami, J.1. C.M.A. Nos. 12 of 1986 and 512 of 1986 arise out of the same cause of action and the same judgment and the facts are the same and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment. On4-10-'81 atabout7.40 p.m. the driver of the Respondent Corporation's bus APZ 9226 kept the vehicle in Janagoan Bus-stand, and himself and the conductor went to take their meals in a Canteen. By the time, they returned they found the vehicle missing and they reported the matter to the Depot Manager and the Traffic Inspector. In the meanwhile, K. Sampath Reddy, the second respondent in the O.P. and the appellant in C.M.A. 12 of 1986 drove the vehicle and near Kazipet he hit the deceased G. Komuraiah, a Kalasi working in the Railway Department, who was proceeding to his house by a cycle and coming opposite to the vehicle. The vehicle dashed against him. He was taken to the Hospital. But in the meanwhile, he died. Sampath Reddy drove the vehicle to a distance of two to three K.Ms and aba...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Uma Gupta Vs. Smt. Sushila and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: AIR1989MP169
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the CP.C. against the order dt. 9th Dec., 1988 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, in Civil Original Suit No. 71 of 1988, whereby the plaintiff's application under Order 6, Rule 17, CP.C for amendment has been rejected.2. The material facts leading to this revision are that the petitioner's husband and respondent No. 1's husband are real brothers. The petitioner's husband is a retired Superintending Engineer of the Public Works Department of the State. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction in relation to the plot of land situated in Saket Nagar Colony in Village Khajarana, Tehsil and District Indore. According to the plaintiff, this plot was purchased by the plaintiff by a registered deed of sale for Rs. 6,000/- out of her own savings, in the name of defendant No. 1 as the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are related and defendant No. 1 had ho property in her...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Tiwari Vs. Rajendra Tiwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ562
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. The child Kartik alias Appu was born on 11-11-1986 at Hathras, to the petitioner, who has claimed his custody in this habeas corpus petition, filed on 8-8-1988. The first respondent Dr. Rajendra Tiwari is the father who had produced the child in this Court on 6-9-1988 pursuant to the specific direction made in that regard by this Court on 23-8-1988. The matter could not, however, be disposed of even on 21-9-1988 when the return and the rejoinder thereto came on records. The delay that has occurred is mainly due to the direction that was considered necessary to be made on 21-9-1988 because the husband/father contested seriously the mental fitness of the wife/mother to be entrusted with the child's custody.2. Before we advert to the averments made in the petition, return and the rejoinder, we may observe even at this stage that talks were held in camera on 21-9-1988 with the husband and the wife to explore possibilities of a reconciliation between the two, so that t...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Manju Tiwari Vs. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1005
T.N. Singh, J.1. The child Kartik alias Appu was born on 11-11-1986 at Hathras, to the petitioner, who has claimed his custody in this habeas corpus petition, filed on 8-8-1988. The first respondent Dr. Rajendra Tiwari is the father who had produced the child in this Court on 6-9-1988 pursuant to the specific direction made in that regard by this Court on 23-8-1988. The matter could not, however, be disposed of even on 21-9-1988 when the return and the rejoinder thereto came on records. The delay that has occurred is mainly due to the direction that was considered necessary to be made on 21-9-1988 because the husband/father contested seriously the mental fitness of the wife/ mother to be entrusted with the child's custody.2. Before we advert to the averments made in the petition, return and the rejoinder, we may observe even at this stage that talks were held in camera on 21-9-1988 with the husband and the wife to explore possibilities of a reconciliation between the two, so that the m...
Tag this Judgment!Rajmal Heeralal JaIn Vs. Manmal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1279; 1989MPLJ153
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 3-4-1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neemuch in Criminal Case No. 190 of 1981 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 93 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 (for short 'the Code') for issue of search warrant has been rejected.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these. The petitioner instituted a criminal complaint against the non-applicants before the learned Magistrate in respect of offences punishable under Sections 405 and 420 to the I.P.C. in relation to certain ornaments.3. The learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 93(1)(a) of the Code ordered issue of search warrant.4. The order aforesaid was challenged in revision wherein it was held that recourse must first be had to the provision of Section 91 of the Code and if the recourse to this provision is not fruitful, the learned Magistrate is free to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 93 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Vs. Returning Officer of Shree Balaji Adimjati Seva Sahkari Sa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP11; 1989MPLJ170
R.K. Varma, J.1. By this petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. the petitioner, who is a member of respondent No. 2 Co-operative Society viz.., Shri Balaji Adimjati Seva Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Badgonda, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore, has sought quashing of the decision of respondent No. 1 Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner for election to the Executive Committee of the respondent No. 2 Society.2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are as follows:Every soceity is required to prepare a list of members including the members who are , disqualified under Section 50-A of the M. P. Coperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as on the date preceding 40 days prior to the date of holding election-meeting of the society under Rule 23 (3)(b) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which reads as under- 'Every society shall prepare a list of members inc...
Tag this Judgment!Keshar Singh Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C. Habibganj and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC262
B.B.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal arises out of award dated 13-7-81 in claim case No. 28/78 of the Court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Dewas, allowing no compensation to the applicant-appellant, in respect of death of his son aged about 14 years, in the accident by the M.P.S.R.T.C. Bus in question.2. Appellant-applicant's case is that deceased had died in consequence of injuries sustained due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was claimed, which was resisted on the ground that the accident in question was for no fault of the bus driver, who was also not the authorized driver, and deceased who had suddenly emerged on the road from behind a stationary vehicle himself dashed against the M.P.S.R.T.C. Bus, which had by then stopped also.3. Driver Abdul Gani NAW 1 in his evidence does not state that the deceased dashed against the M.P.S.R.T.C. bus when it had already stopped. On the other hand, he admits (NAW 1 Para 8) that his bus had sto...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan S. Sharma Vs. Rameshwar R. Khandelwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP155
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. The petitioner-tenant, aggrieved of the order of eviction passed under Section 23A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short 'the Act, in case No.6/84-85A 90(7) on 9-5-85 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandsaur, has come up in revision under Section 23E of the Act.2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the respondent invoked the special provisions as contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act and filed an application under Section 23A(a) of the Act, for seeking eviction of the petitioner from the accommdation let to the petitioner. Summons was issued and served on the petitioner on 5-2-85 but the summons so issued did not accompany a copy of the plaint filed by the respondent. The petitioner appeared on the date fixed and brought this fact to the notice of the Rent Controlling Authority stating that he is not in a position to apply for obtaining leave, as required under Section 23C of the Act in the absence of the copy of the plaint as the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Vithalrao Vs. Gangaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1989MP172
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The appellant-landlord has come up in this Second Appeal against an order dt. 21-1-88 passed by the District Judge, Dhar in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/78, under Section 18(3) of the M, P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are thus: The appellant filed a suit in the year 1975 for ejectment in respect of the suit premises situated at house No. 271, Pipli Bazar, Dhar on the ground of Section 12(1)(h) and on-other grounds. The suit was decreed under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act as the accommodation was required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding or making substantial additions or alterations and in the opinion of the decreeing Court, such rebuilding or additions or alterations could not be carried out without the accommodation being vacant. Against this, the tenant-respondent filed an appeal, which was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred, wherein the decree of the Courts below was confirmed ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR451(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J. 1. By this application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, 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 in implementing the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer was justified in revising the assessment for the year 1973-74 in the absence of any rectification order having been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : While framing the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,918 to the income of the assessee on account of undervaluation of the closing stock. This addition was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. While framing the ass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »