Madhya Pradesh Court October 1989 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.
Babu Pahalwan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ682
ORDERFaizanuddin, J.1. The order passed in this petition will also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 1903 of 1988 (Nandu Singh v. State of M. P.); M. P. No. 2161 of 1988 (Shiv Dayal v. State of M.P. and 2 Ors.); M P. No. 2195 of 1989 Uaggi and Bhana v. Director General of Prisons, Bhopal and 2 Ors.) M. P. No. 2204 of 1988 (Balram v. State of M.P. and Anr.) M. P. No. 2328 of 1988 Shamser Singh, Kunj Bihari Singh, Prithvipal Singh and Netraj Singh v. State of M.P.) M.P. No. 2643 of 1988 (Rannu, Chunwad and Kirpal Singh v. State of M.P. and Anr.): M.P. No. 2927 of 1988 (Ramchandar alias Kaliya v. State of M.P.): M.P. No. 2929 of 1988 (Kachroo Singh v. State of M.P. and Anr.): M. P. No. 3383 of 1988 (Khunna v. The State of M.P. and Anr.): M. P. No. 3/89 (Semali v. State of M. P. and Anr.); M.P. 3035 of 89 (Shiv Sahay v. State of M.P. and Anr.) and M.P. No. 3835 of 1989 (Umashankar and Jamuna v. State of M. P. and Anr.) as in all these petitions common question of law is involved for consider...
Babupahalwan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2704
ORDERFaizanuddin, J.1. The order passed in this petition will also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 1903 of 1988 (Nandu Singh v. State of M.P.); M.P. No. 2161 of 1988 (Shiv Dayal v. State of M.P. and 2 Ors.); M.P. No. 2195 of 1989 (Jaggi and Bhana v. Director General of Prisons Bhopal and 2 Ors.) M.P. No. 2204 of 1988 (Balram v. State of M.P. and Anr.) M.P. No. 2328 of 1988 (Shamser Singh, Kunj Bihari Singh, Prithvipal Singh and Netraj Singh v. State of M.P.) M.P. No. 2643 of 1988 (Rannu, Chunwad and Kirpal Singh v. State of M.P. and Anr.); M.P. No. 2927 of 1988 (Ram-chandar alias Kaliya v. State of M.P.); M.P. No. 2929 of 1988 (Kachroo Singh v. State of M.P. and Anr.); M.P. No. 3383 of 1988 (Khunna v. State of M.P. and Anr.); M.P. No. 3/89 (Semali v. State of M.P. and Anr.); M.P. 3035 of 89 (Shiv Sahay v. State of M.P. and Anr.) and M.P. No. 3835 of 1989 (Umashanker and Jamuna v. State of M.P. and Anr.) as in all these petitions common question of law is involved for consideration of t...
Bhaiyalal Shukla Vs. Chairman Special Area Development Authority Singr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP365
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. It is lamentable that even after trend-setting pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the famous 'Airport' case in Raman Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, the 'State' and their authorities falling under Article 12 of the Constitution are still oblivious to their obligations under Article 14 of the Constitution. The legal position is now settled that the government no longer enjoys absolute discretion to enter into contract with anyone it likes. The State has to choose the party in a non-discriminatory manner. The State must act fairly and make a choice of the contracting party by affording equal opportunity to all contenders by examining their claims fairly. The present case is an instance where the respondent Special Area Development Authority, Singroli (hereinafter referred to as the 'authority'), constituted under M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivash Adhiniyam, 1973, can be said to be guilty of deviating with impunity from...
Grover Soap Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR127(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. The order in this case will also govern the disposal of M. C. C. No. 783 of 1987.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.3. While framing the assessment for the assessment year in question, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim made by the assessee that the expenditure incurred on account of royalty paid to Shri Jaikishan and Jag-dishchander for the use of goodwill of the National Soap Industry was revenue expenditure. On appeal, this finding of the Income-tax Officer was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal also upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this behalf. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee sought reference but as the application filed by the assessee in that behalf was rejected, the assessee has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Act.4. H...
Mukesh and Co. Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Lag ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ694
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. This State of Madhya Pradesh is the principal grower of tendu leaves in the country. Sixty percent of the total produce of tendu leaves in the country is from this State. By enacting the Tendu Paita (Vyapar Evam Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, the State acquired monopoly in respect of sale of tendu leaves. Sections 5 and 12 of the Adhiniyam empower the State Government to dispose of tendu leaves in such manner as may be deemed fit. That Adhiniyam contains provision for appointment of purchasers of tendu leaves. In the year 1984, a Government controlled co-operative society, named as M. P. Rajya Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapar Evam Vikas) Sahakari Sangh, was appointed as the agent for disposal of tendu leaves grown in the State. The remaining tendu leaves were to be disposed of by the State Government. Tendu leaves were being disposed of by inviting tenders. The Government claims that with a view to bring about better working conditions for the labourers engaged in collection of...
Bhanu Prakash Agrawal Vs. Roop Chand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP198
K.K. Verma, J.1. On 12-1-1987 respondent 1 Roop Chand filed an application under Section 151, C. P. C. -- registered as M.C.C. 6/87 -- seeking an order for a clarification in the judgment dated 24-9-1986 of Dr. T. N. Singh, J., in Second Appeal No. 7/86 (Roop Chand v. Bhanu Prakash). On 29-6-1987 the learned single Judge dismissed the application but granted two weeks' time to applicant Roop Chand to deliver vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the landlord-decree-holder, non-applicant Bhanu Prakash, under Sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Non-applicant Bhanu Prakash, aggrieved by the grant of two weeks' time to applicant Roop Chand, has filed a L.P.A. under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.2. The learned counsel for respondent 1 Roop Chand has raised a preliminary objection that the present L.P.A. is not maintainable under Section 100A, C.P.C. and also because the impugned order was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of that...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC308(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Ag. C.J.1. The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 79, 80, 81 and 92, all of 1984.2. These are all references under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question of law, which has been referred in all these cases by the Board of Revenue to this Court for its opinion is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, glass sheets will be assessed to tax under entry No. 1 of Part VI of Schedule II appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and not under entry No. 26 of Part II of Schedule II ?'3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to these references are that while framing assessment of the assessees, who had effected sale of glass sheets, the assessing authority rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the assessees that assessment should be made under the residuary entry and not under entry No. 26 of Part II of Schedule II of th...
Balwant Vs. Mainabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1991MP11
K.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal under Section 299 of the Succession Act, 1928 (for short 'the Succession Act') is directed against the order dt. 12-12-1987 passed by the Additional Judge to the District Judge, Indore, at Mhow, dismissing the appellant's application under Section 276 ibid for grant of Probate, on the finding that it is barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Limitation Act').2. Circumstances giving rise to this appeal are there. The appellant Balwant filed an application before the learned lower Court on 26-4-80 under Section 276 of the Succession Act for grant of Probate stating that Bonder who died on 24-12-73 had executed a Will dt. 20-9-1973 and thereunder he is the legatee and also the executor.3. The aforesaid application was opposed by respondent Mainabai who is the widow of Kanhaiyalal, pre-deceased son of Bonder. According to her the Will is a forged one.4. It was also urged on behalf of the respondent that in the mutation procee...
Jagdish Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ634
Y.B. Suryavanshi, J.1. Nine appellants viz. Jagdish Singh, Narwar Singh, Yashwant Singh, Phool Singh, Dhan Singh, Karan Singh alias Kalyan, Ratan Singh, Hakam Singh and Gopal Singh, all r/o village Nadia, P.S. Suvatala, Distt. Narsinghpur have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and findings dated 26-4-1986, in S.T. No. 46/85, of the Court of A.S.J., Narsinghpur. 28 accused were charge-sheeted for committing offences under sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code. 19 have been acquitted, and the nine appellants abovesaid have been convicted and sentenced as below:Conviction SentenceAppellant No. 1 Jagdish Singhunder section 302, Indian Penal Code. R.I. for life.Appellants 2 to 9 under section 302/149,Indian Penal Code. R.I. for life.Appellants 4 and 7 R.I. for one yeari.e. Phool Singh and Ratansinghunder section 323, Indian Penal Code forcausing hurt to P.W. 1 Kasim Khanwith a direction that the sentences of appellants Nos. 4 and 7 shall be concurrent.2. It is commo...
BHEL Executives' Association and Anr. Vs. Chairman and Managing Direct ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ699
ORDERFaizanuddin, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner No. -Shri Ram Pratap Singh (for short R. P. Singh) who is the President of petinoner No. 1 and also an Executive in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (for short BHEL), a Public Sector Government of India Undertaking, have assailed and called in question the inter-unit order of transfer of petitioner No. 2, dated 14th July, 1989 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Competent Authority, respondent No. 2 herein, and seek a direction to quash the same.2. The Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a Public Sector Government of India undertaking, is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered headquarter at New Delhi. It was established in 1956 and at present it is the largest Engineering and Manufacturing enterprise of its kind in India with 13 Manufacturing plants and about 100 project sites spread over throughout the country. BHEL, Bhopal is one of the units of this Company which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »