Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sardar Rajendrasingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR584(MP)
S.K. Jha, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax seeks a reference on the statement of the case to be filed on the question as to :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that no penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act is imposable on the assessee for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1973-74 ?'2. In the course of the wealth-tax assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1973-74 in the case of the assessee, Sardar Rajendrasingh, a leading advocate of Jabalpur, the Wealth-tax Officer found that the assessee had not included the following assets in his net wealth :1966-67Credit balance in wife'sname in Allahabad BankRs. 6,976JewelleryRs. 8,000TotalRs. 14,9763. With regard to the year 1973-74, the corresponding amounts were Rs. 9,963 and Rs. 10,000, the total being Rs. 19,963. The Wealth-tax Officer...
Abhayram Vs. Sumitrabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1989
Reported in: II(1991)ACC604
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner and driver respectively of Motor Vehicle tractor No. M.P.G. 1342, have challenged the interim award of Rs. 15,000/- passed by the Claims Tribunal, Raipur in favour of the respondents, in exercise of powers under Sections 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (now repealed by the new Act).2. The impugned award has been challenged by the counsel appearing for the appellants, mainly on the ground that the Tribunal did not care to examine that the motor vehicle in question was not involved in the accident which resulted in the death of Raghunath. The counsel appearing for the appellants urged that in the claim petition itself there is no clear averment that there had been any collision of the deceased with the tractor and the Claim Tribunal without holding any enquiry and coming to a final conclusion on the same could not have passed the interim award on the basis of no fault liab...
Sindh Transport Co. Vs. State Transport Authority, M.P. Gwalior and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: 1989MPLJ831
T.N. Singh, J. 1. Two Division Benches of this Court having expressed conflicting views on a legal question, the State Transport Authority, for short, Authority or S.T.A., noted the dilomma and made an earnest endeavour to steer clear of the judicial controversy in passing the impugned order, Annexure D, on 15-6-1972. However, that ingenuity was a short-lived one inasmuch as that order being challenged before a learned single Judge of this Court in this petition, he referred the controversy to a Division Bench and that Bench, in turn, referred for the opinion of a Larger Bench, the following question :- 'Whether the permit-holder has a right under any provision of law or under inherent powers of the Court, to get the period of permit extended for the period during which the permit remained suspended?' 2. Because we have taken the view that it is necessary to finally dispose of this matter to make amends for the unintended and fortuitous procrastination, it is necessary to state first f...
Kumari Anjana Mishra and anr. Vs. Principal, K.M. Rustogi, M.L.B. Coll ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP120
T.N. Singh, J.1. Should classroom education be monopolised by potentialprofessionals of only one particular class? This question with its constitutional remification a la gender justice in statutory context has surfaced for decision in this case.2. Two girl students jointly addressed a letter to this Court on 4-8-1989, making a common complaint against Principals of M.L.B. College and Madhav Mahavidyalaya, both of Gwalior. We directed on 20-9-1989, issuance of notices to those respondents. Petitioner No. 1 (Kum. Anjana Mishra) has complained that she had applied in the month of June, 1989 for admission in Part II of L.L.B. course having cleared Part I with 61% of marks, but the Principal, M.L.B. College has not passed any order on her application. She petitioned this Court on being verbally refused admission. She has stated further, on oath, that she was forced to appear as a private candidate in Part I examination though she was allowed orally to attend classes in M.L.B. College and s...
Vijay Prakash and ors. Vs. Smt. Jankibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ571
ORDERB.M. Lal, J.1. While hearing this Second Appeal on the substantial question of law framed on 7-1-1986, learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised an objection that the Cross-objection filed by the Respondents/plaintiffs invoking the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.), is not liable to be looked into for want of processing it in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 11 of Order 41 and framing substantial question of law as required to be framed in regular Second Appeal under Order 42, Rule 2 read with section 100.2. This gave rise to determine:'Whether the cross-objection filed in Second Appeal falls within the ambit of Order 42, Rule 2 read with section 100, C.P.C. and requires processing in accordance with Rule 11 of Order 41 by framing substantial question of law?' 3. Bare reading of Order 41, Rule 1 postulates that the entire Order 41 is applicable to appeals from original decrees, i.e. First Ap...
Amrik Chand Saluja Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ601
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in arms and ammunition and carries on business in the name and style of 'M/s. Amrik Chand Hukum Singh Saluja' in Bilaspur. He held a licence for possessing and acquiring arms and ammunition, as required by the Arms Act, 1959. This licence Was valid upto 31-12-1986. The petitioner then applied for its renewal, vide Annexures-B, D and F for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 respectively. These applications were not disposed of. However, the petitioner went on depositing in the treasury the necessary licence fee. Although no formal orders, renewing the licence for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989, were passed yet, from time to time, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, issued no objection certificates for import of fire arms and ammunition, as and when required. Annexures-M to MO, annexed to the petition, are a few of such no objection certificates, which range from 3-1-1987 to 12-9-1988. The petitioner was allowed to continue the business of dealin...
Amrik Chand Saluja Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1314
B.C. Varma, J.1. The petitioner then applied for its renewal, vide Annexures-B, D and F for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 respectively. These applications were not disposed of. However, the petitioner went on depositing in the treasury the necessary licence fee. Although no formal orders, renewing the licence for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989, were passed, yet, from time to time, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, issued no objection certificates for import of fire arms and ammunition, as and when required. Annexures-I-1 to I-10, annexed to the petition, are a few of such no objection certificates, which range from 3-1-1987 to 12-9-1988. The petitioner was allowed to continue the business of dealing in arms and ammunition, as before. However, on 21-1-1988, the arms and ammunition held by the petitioner in his premises were seized by the Kotwali Police and were removed to the Police Station. The seizure memo is Annexure-A. The petitioner alleges that the arms so seized also include fire...
Sesh Narayan Bajpai, Advocate Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ161
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. This petition raises a question of general importance as to scope of section 10(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the right and jurisdiction of Sessions Judge in a given Sessions Division to transfer applications to another Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. The matter arises thus:2. Mandla is a Sessions Division with headquarters at Mandla. The Sessions Judge sits at Mandla where one more Additional Sessions Judge functions. Recently, an Additional Sessions Judge has also been posted at Dindori which is a Tahsil place within the jurisdiction of Sessions Division, Mandla. By office order dated 7-7-1989, the Sessions Judge, Mandla, in exercise of powers under section 10(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 directed that the bail applications and also applications for grant of interim stay arising out of the cases in Revenue Tahsil, Dindori shall be filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori. After those applications are heard, the cases b...
Shankarsingh Bapusingh Thakur Vs. Mohan Singh Ramchandra Singh and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ349
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This is an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') for transfer of Civil Suit No. 13-A of 1983 instituted in the Court of District Judge, Dewas to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain.2. Circumstances giving rise to the application are these: The petitioner Shankarsingh instituted the aforesaid civil suit in the District Court, Dewas claiming declaration of title to the house in question situate at Dewas and for possession thereof.3. According to the petitioner the house in question belonged to his deceased father Bapusingh and by the will dated 8-1-1979 registered in Ujjain, the said Bapusingh has given his property including the house referred to above to him.4. Subsequent to the institution of the aforesaid suit the non-applicant No. 3 Jagdishsingh in 1985 instituted a partition suit as an indigent person. It is pending in the Court of District Judge, Ujjain and is registered as Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1988. I...
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahila Choti Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ680
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is an appeal under section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 arising out of an interim award passed under section 92-A of the Act by the Claims Tribunal. The appellant has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The grievance raised by the appellant is that section 92-A of the Act does not contemplate payment of interest and hence the impugned interim award is liable to be set aside to the extent to which it directs payment of interest.2. The provisions relating to the Claims Tribunals and award by them on applications for compensation are to be found placed in Chaper VIII of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Jurisdiction to award 'interest on a claim being allowed by the Claims Tribunal was conferred by section 110-CC of the Act. The provision, as it originally stood, provided that the Court or Tribunal allowing a claim for compensation made under that Chapt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »