Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Lachhiram Puranmal and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR186(MP)
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the firm. The firm submitted its return for the assessment year 1988-89 for the accounting period 1986-87 ending with Diwali 1987. In the account of the firm, an amount of Rs. 1,17,000 is shown deposited by Jagdishchandra and Rs. 1,10,000 by Rameshchandra. Rs. 60,000 were shown deposited by Anilkumar. According to the petitioners, all these amounts were invested by these persons in the firm after making voluntary declaration under the Amnesty Scheme declared for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87. Respondent No. 1 on November 17, 1989, issued a notice under Section 143(2) of theIncome-tax Act, 1961, challenging the deposit of the above sums on the ground that these amounts shown as deposited in the firm, are actually the income of the firm and not of the persons in whose accounts the amounts have been shown. The grievance of the petitioners is that once these amounts...
Ashokbabu Jaduvanshi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ134
ORDERY.B. Suryavanshi, J.1. The petitioner Ashokbabu Jaduvanshi, an ex-Process Writer on the establishment of the District Court, Jhabua, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of termination of his services (Annexure 'C') dated 6-3-1985, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jhabua, on the ground that the services of the petitioner are terminated with effect from 6-3-1985 as no longer required.2. It is common ground that the petitioner belongs to Class-Ill category of employees. He was appointed on 26-8-1982 as Process Writer until further orders, with a condition that he would appear for interview when held and in the event of the petitioner's being unsuccessful in the interview, he would be relieved, without notice (Order dated 26-8-1982, Annexure 'A'). Thereafter, he was attached in the Record Section till 15-7-1984 and then posted vide order No. 302 dated 12-7-1984, as Process Writer, where he continued to work as suc...
Laliya Bai Vs. Ramesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC433; 1991ACJ505
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the claimant.2. The appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 40,000/- against the respondents on the allegation that her husband, deceased Galju, died on 18.10.1981 while he was going on a cycle on account of a violent dash given by truck No. MPJ 7314 driven by respondent Hajari and owned by Mohanlal Rajput, since deceased now represented by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in this appeal. The vehicle was insured in the name of Mohanlal with the insurance company, respondent No. 6. It was, therefore, prayed that the compensation be awarded jointly and severally against the driver, owner and the insurance company. The owner and the driver filed a joint written statement opposing the claim. They further submitted that on 12.1.1977, they had transferred the truck to Narendra Taneja and also handed over possession to him. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. While describ...
Doongarji S/O Ramji Deceased Through L.R. Ramlal Vs. Indira Bai W/O Ra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1989
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ149
ORDERS.D. Jha, J.1. The short question arising for determination in this appeal is, whether intermeddler Ramlal in no way related to deceased appellant-tenant Dongarji can avoid abatement of the appeal.2. This second appeal by order dated 26-6-1982 was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:-'Whether the Appellate Court committed an error of law in holding that the provisions of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not applicable to Rajendra Nagar even after its inclusion in the Corporation of Indore '3. Original defendant/appellant Dongarji after presenting this Appeal died on 2-6-1987 survived by his son Shantilal s/o Dongarji aged 60 years residing at Bombay-9 (Maharashtra). Shantilal did not make any application to be brought on record as Legal Representative of the deceased-appellant. Ramlal presented an application (IA No. 2060/87) dated 15-7-1987 claiming to be an adopted son of deceased Dongarji and also having performed his last rites....
Smt. Ushadevi and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP268; 1990MPLJ353
T.N. Singh, J. 1. On a reference made by two of us, sitting in a Division Bench, the following question has come up for the opinion of this Bench :'Whether the State Government is entitled to furnish information to the Board of Revenue to act suo motu under Section 42 of M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 though the State had not appealed against the impugned order and whether the Board was competent to exercise power suo motu on application filed by the State Government furnishing relevant information for exercise of that power?'2. It may be appropriate to state briefly the facts giving rise to this reference. An order was passed on 31-12-1975 by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, acting as the 'Competent Authority' under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, for short, the 'Act'. The order was passed under Section 11(6) of the Act holding that the 'holder' (land-holder) had no surplus land as could attract the provisions of Section 12 for those...
Pushpa @ Hempushpa Vs. Praduman Kumar Ojha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ509
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The trial Court has passed a decree of judicial separation between the parties, a Hindu spouse. The wife has come up in appeal. However, the office reports that the appeal is barred by time as having been filed beyond 48 days of the period prescribed.2. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed along with the appeal memo. It is stated that the appellant, resident of a village and less educated, ignorant of law, was advised by her local counsel that the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal to the High Court against the impugned decree was 90 days. She acted on the legal advice. She contacted the counsel at Gwalior within the suggested period of limitation. She was told that the period of limitation was 30 and not 90 days and hence the appeal was barred by limitation. The appellant in her application, duly supported by an affidavit, contends that the legal advice bona fide acted...
Shrimal Dal Mills (Firm) and ors. Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ431
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioners by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seek a direction by writ of mandamus against the respondent for performing its part of duty in regard to Mandi yard in respect of the petitioners as provided under section 17 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam and not to levy or collect the market fee as required by section 19 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam till such facilities are provided in the Mandi. The second prayer of the petitioners is to quash the notice Ex.P-10 issued against the petitioners by the Mandi Committee asking them to show cause as to why their licences be not suspended.2. The petitioners are businessmen doing the business within the premises of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sarangpur. According to them the respondent Mandi Committee is not fulfilling the duties imposed upon it under section 17 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam (for brevity the Adhiniyam). The duties are mandatory in nature and ...
R.K. Dubey Vs. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1989
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ182MP; 1990MPLJ669
RAM PAL SINGH, J 1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing that part of the order Annexure-P2 which relates to the posting of the respondent No. 3 at Bhopal and the transfer of the petitioner to Satna from Bhopal.2. The respondent No. 1, M.P. State Agro Industries Devlopment Corporation Limited is the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 ot the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 2 is its Chairman and respondent No. 3 is an employee of the respondent No. 1, like the petitioner. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent No. 1 on April 2, 1975 as an Asstt. Agro Service Engineer after obtaining the B. Tech degree in Agriculture Engineering from Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. By promotion, now being quite senior in the hierarchy of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner occupies the post of Deputy General Manager w.e.f. July 28, 1980.3. By Annexure-P2, the petitioner was directed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›