Madhya Pradesh Court August 1990 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.
Akhtarunnisa and anr. Vs. Naseeb Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC133
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This revision at the instance of the wife and her minor son against her husband is directed against the order dated 13-3-1987 of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur rejecting their claim for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Magistrate by order dated 2-1-1985 had granted a sum of Rs. 150/- per month to the wife and Rs. 50/- per month to the minor son as maintenance to be paid by the husband. The Sessions Court in revision at the instance of the husband set aside the order of the Magistrate on the ground that the evidence disclosed that the wife herself left the house of the husband and refused to live with him because he was living in a small accommodation jointly with his sister and brother-in-law. The Sessions Judge, therefore, formed an opinion that there was no refusal or neglect to maintain on the part of the husband.2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, first made an attempt to assail ...
Bharat Vs. Suhana Bai and Four ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC289
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-11-1989 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, whereby the case between the parties for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been remanded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for retrial. The non-applicant No. 1 is the wife of the applicant and the non-applicant No. 2 to 5 are their minor children.2. A joint application was filed by the wife and the minor children for grant of maintenance in their favour under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Magistrate by order dated 11-2-85 dismissed the application of the wife as also of the minor children on the ground that no evidence was led by the wife regarding means of the husband and her requirement for maintenance.3. The wife and the minor children preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge who by the impunged order dated 6-11-1989 came to the conclusion that the parties having not...
Bhoopatsingh S/O Khoobsingh and anr. Vs. Anrathsingh S/O Khoobsingh an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ371
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Sessions Court whereby in proceedings Under Sections 145/146, Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions Court has in supersession of the order of the S. D. M. directed the order of attachment and appointment of Receiver to be restored while the learned Magistrate had directed the proceedings to be dropped.2. The facts are little complicated and need to be noticed with care. For the sake of convenience Bhoopatsingh and Gumansingh, the two brothers and petitioners herein, shall be referred to as 'Party No. 1 and Anrathsingh and Phool Bai, the husband and wife, non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 herein, shall be referred to as 'Party No. 2' as they were before the original Court.3. The property in dispute consists of agricultural land. It appears that the land is recorded in the revenue papers in the name of Vinodsingh and Hukumsingh both minors. Their father Anratsingh, purporting to act as their guardian, transferred the sai...
Draupadi Bai W/O Ganpatrao Choudhary and anr. Vs. Prem Singh Jagannath ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ426
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. A suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking ejectment of the defendant/respondent from the suit accommodation, residential one, on the grounds available under clauses (a) and (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (the 'Act', for short), having been dismissed by the Courts below; the present appeal has been filed.2. The question on which the appeal was admitted for hearing on 7-4-1984 has been recast during course of hearing by enlarging its scope and hence the appeal has been heard on the following question : -'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decrees of the respondent on the ground of genuine requirement of the plaintiff for residence of her members of the family are perverse and liable to be set aside.'3. The suit was filed by one Avantika Bai, who having expired during the pendency of this appeal, her legal representatives have been brought on record. Ground under clause (a) has been neg...
Balwant Singh S/O Ramnarayan Patidar and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ306
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 306/86 (Nandlal v. Balwant Singh) which also arises out of the appellate order dated 26-9-1986 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Cr. A. No. 43/85 under Section 454(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') whereby setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate in favour of the N. A. No. 2 Mangilal, he has remanded the case for fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.2. Circumstances giving rise to these revision petitions are these -- Nandlal N. A. No. 3 in the present revision, on 21-11-1978 filed a criminal complaint in respect of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of J.M.F.C., Javed (later on registered as Criminal Case No. 101/81), alleging that he had purchased the truck in question which is registered in his name for Rs. 33,000/- after borrowing Rs. 9,500/- from the N. A. No. 2 M...
Shiv Ratan S/O Shiv Dayal Lakhotia Vs. Kanhaiyalal S/O Tikamdas and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ367
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-1-1989 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1988 whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'the Code') has been dismissed.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these : The non-applicant Kanhaiyalal is the son of Tikamdas, the non-applicant No. 10. The said Kanhaiyalal instituted the aforesaid suit in the year 1965 against his father Tikamdas, his uncles and others for partition of Joint Family property held by Nathmalji, his deceased grandfather who died prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Succession Act').3. The petitioner is the son of Sarjubai, the daughter of non-applicant Kanhaiyalal's deceased uncle Gokuldas. On 15-11-1988 he filed the aforesaid application under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Code stating that the nun-a...
Ram Chand Sharma Vs. Collector, Customs and Central Excise
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC1; 1992(61)ELT543(MP)
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This is a petition filed by two petitioners jointly. Petitioner No. 1 carries on the business of stitching H.D.P.E. woven sacks and petitioner No. 2 carries on the business of printing H.D.P.E. woven sacks. According to the petitioners, on receiving orders from their customers they receive H.D.P.E. fabrics from the manufacturers/dealers directed by the customers. The petitioners only do the job work of stitching and printing the sacks. In case the customers desire delivery outside Indore, then as per their instructions the sacks are despatched through the transport as directed by them. The Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, has exempted woven sacks of polymers of ethylene or propylene or its combination thereof, falling under Heading No. 46.01 or 63.01 of the Schedule from the whole of the duty of excise specified in that Schedule vide Notification No. 223/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986. ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Savitri Dawar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR431(MP)
B.C. Verma, Actg. C.J.1. This judgment shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 467 of 1984. The assessee is Smt. Savitri. She filed return of her wealth under Section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act for the year 1973-74 and for the year 1975-76 in her status as an individual. In the return filed, her share in a plot at South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, was not disclosed. Later, she disclosed that the plot was purchased jointly by her and her husband who was also an assessee. The plot was disclosed in the return filed by her husband under Section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act. When pointed out that she too had a share in the plot, she added the value of her share in her return. She was then asked to explain this omission and also to show cause why penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act be not imposed on her for concealment of the particulars of her wealth. In answer, the assessee stated that the revised return was voluntarily filed and the omission was bona fide. Her explanation had been t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhilai Mahila Samaj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR604(MP)
B.C. Verma, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question has been referred to this court for opinion :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to entertain the application in Form No. 6, when such an application was not signed by a person who was authorised to sign it ?'2. The assessee, Bhilai Mahila Samaj, Bhilai, is a charitable trust and is being assessed to tax in the status of an association of persons. Return was filed on August 31, 1978. Exemption was claimed under Section 11(1) for Rs. 45,000, as the amount was applied for charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year. The return so filed, according to the provisions of Section 139 of the Act, was due on June 30, 1978. An application in Form No. 6 for extension of time for filing the return up to August 31, 1978, was duly filed on June 30, 1978. The assessee did not receive any intimation regarding the disposa...
Krishna Bai Wd/O Mohanlal and ors. Vs. Krishanlal S/O. Nandlal and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ615; (1993)IIILLJ653MP; 1991(0)MPLJ485
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30(1)(aa) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 preferred by the claimants aggrieved by an award whereby compensation has been allowed to the claimants but without interest. The claimants/appellants pray for award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till realisation.2. The learned counsel for the insurancecompany has raised a preliminary objection tothe maintainability of the appeal. He submitsthat Section 30 of the Act contemplates anappeal to the High Court only against the ordersspecifically provided by Clauses (a) to (e) ofSub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Section30(1)(aa) contemplates an appeal against anorder awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A', but not against an order refusing to award interest or penalty and hence, the presentappeal is incompetent.3. Section 30(1) of the Act reads as under :-'30. Appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie to High Court from the following o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »