Madhya Pradesh Court March 1991 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chunnilal Sitaram.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1991
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(MP)77
ORDERBY THE COURTThe order in this case shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Case No. 713 of 1985 [CIT, Jabalpur vs. M/s. Chunnilal Sitaram, Narsinghpura] as both arise out of similar orders of the Tribunal refusing to refer certain question which, according to the applicant-Department, are question of law arising out of the order of the facts and Tribunal. The two cases relate to two different assessment years but the facts and circumstances in both the cases are identical.2. The respondent-assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of bidis. The assessee submitted returns which were later on revised. The ITO found that the closing stocks of previous year were undervalued and thus concealed the particulars of income. On this finding, penalty proceedings were initiated under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The notice was issued to the assessee. The explanation was that the stock left at the end of the previous year contained rotten leaves and as such was valued at a lower rate. T...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdambe Niwad Co. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP35
T.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal was admitted on 22-2-1986, On that date, the question of court-fees was left open. Indeed, from order dated 2-1-1986, it appears, exemption was claimed in respect of court-fees.2. Accordingly, the left-over question has to be decided first. In the memorandum of appeal, at para 5, it is stated that the appellant Banwarilal, carrying on business under the name and style M/s. Jagdame Niwad Company, is an ex-serviceman, drawing monthly pension of Rs. 300/- and his annual income from all sources did not exceed Rs. 6000/-. It is also stated that he was a member of a weaker section of society. He accordingly claimed exemption from payment of court-fees, invoking Government Notification No. F.9.83-B-XXI, dated 1-4-1983. An affidavit also he filed in that regard at the time of presentation of the appeal along with copy of the Notification. Subsequently, on 14-2-1986, he filed two certificates -- one by Tahsildar himself certifying appellant being a member of a backw...
Tag this Judgment!Hadinbai W/O C.H. Dharmarao Vs. Smt. C.H. Parwati W/O C.H. Dharmarao a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ761
ORDERS.K. Jha, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Application has been purported to be filed under Sub-section (3) of Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The impugned order has been passed on 28-3-1989 in an appeal by the District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, being Civil Appeal No. 11/88. The learned District Judge has passed the order in an appeal from the order dated 15-7-1988 passed by the Civil Judge (Class-I), Jagdalpur, in Succession Case No. 5/84. The entire value of the 'property in respect of which a succession certificate has been claimed by the present applicant Smt. Hadinbai, is Rs. 12,066.00 only comprising two properties; one is for Rs. 10,000.00 under the Family Benefit Scheme and the other is for Rs. 2,066.00 lying to the credit of the deceased C. H. Dharmarao in his G.P.F. Account. These are the only two items in respect of which succession certificate has been claimed to be granted.2. When the case was taken up for hearing, Shri S. C. Pandey, learned counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Bai Vs. Himmat Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC120; 1993(0)MPLJ325
P.N.S. Chouhan, J.1. Appellant Kashibai is the legally married wife ofBhagwansingh. There are two issues born of this wedlock. Kashibai filed a complaint Under Section 494read with Section 114 IPC against the respondents and twoothers in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udaipura District Raisenon the ground that during her absence her husband Bhagwansingh has contrac-ted second marriage with Binibai daughter of respondent Himmatsingh on1-2-1980. One of the accused namely Parmenand who has officiated aspriest at the second marriage though pleaded not guilty admitted the fact thatBhagwansingh had contracted marriage with Binnibai at her parents villageTimravan. Vide judgment dated 5.12.1984, the learned trial Magistrate held onfacts that neither the first nor second marriage was proved and acquitted theaccused persons. The complainant then filed this appeal against the said orderof acquittal and leave to appeal was granted only against the respondents.2. Appellant's learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Bhushan Paul Verma Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ777
ORDERS.K. Jha, C.J.1. This application is directed against the order dated 9-8-1989 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 4-A of 1989. The applicant was the defendant No. 1 in the suit having alleged to have taken a loan from the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 the Union Bank of India, and the original defendant No. 2 was one Narayan Prasad Goswami, who is said to be the guarantor and the mortgagor of the secured property. The suit by the respondent No. 1 Bank was instituted for recovery of the aforesaid loan along with the interest against both the applicant and the deceased Narayan Prasad Goswami (original defendant No. 2).2. By the impugned order, the Court below has merely in one sentence said that the application for substitution of the heirs of deceased defendant No. 2 is allowed since he is dead and the delay is condoned. It is this order which is the subject matter of attack before this Court.3. The admitted facts are ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathasingh Ratansingh Raghuvanshi Vs. Jagannathsingh Maharajsingh Ragh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ209
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. This common order disposes of two appeals preferred by the propounder of a Will of deceased Maharaj Singh, said to be executed on 19-9-1968. He has preferred two separate appeals (namely, M. A. No. 118 of 1985 and M. A. No. 123 of 1985) because not only his Will was not probated his objection was rejected in regard to the Will dated 5-10-1958 propounded by respondent Jagannath Singh in respect to which the Court below has granted probate, to the said respondent.2. Maharaj Singh's date of death is not disputed. What also was not disputed in his objection by the present appellant in the Court below is that respondent Jagannath Singh was son of deceased Maharaj Singh. In his objection filed in Probate Case No. 2 of 1982, registered for probating the Will propounded by respondent Jagannath Singh, the only objection made was that Will dated 5-10-1958, executed by Maharaj Singh was not his last Will and that on 18-11-1956, the deceased had not executed any Will. He also...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Zahida Bi and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ361
B.C. Varma, Actg. C.J. 1. Through this petition is questioned the acquisition proceedings relating to certain premises near Bharat Talkies in Bhopal, which is part of a building known as Naseer Building. It appears from the pleadings that Naseer Building was actually divided into two portions, one of which was sold to Madanlal and the remaining part continued to be owned by the petitioners. While implementing the widely declared 'encroachment removing drive', a threat was publicly made to demolish this Naseer Building. A portion of it had already been demolished. The right of the respondents to so demolish the building under the said drive has been questioned separately by the petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 2501 of 1990 (That petition is also being disposed of today by a separate order). According to the petitioners, when the respondents' attempt to demolish this part of the building was foiled by the petitioners, the respondents have thought of a device of compulsorily acquiring th...
Tag this Judgment!Sagoobai and ors. Vs. Sohanlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ304
R.K. Varma, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimants against the award dated 17.6.1982 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in Claim Case No. 83 of 1981 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 18,0007- only with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in respect of the death of the deceased Mohan, an agriculturist aged 20 years, who died as a result of a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. MTB 2638 which hit the deceased, who was going on a cycle on Badnatar-Ratlam Road.2. The widow, father and daughter of the deceased filed the instant claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,74,3007-alleging that the claimants have been deprived of the learnings of the deceased who was tilling 28 bighas of agricultural lands of his own and was earning wages at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The young widow, the minor daughter and the aged father have also claimed non-pecuniary damages to the extent ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchulal Govindji Vs. Manager, Indore Textiles Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ829
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner in this case was employed as a Boiler Attendant in the Indore Textiles Limited at Ujjain. The petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 3-12-1980 on his reaching the age of superannuation in accordance with the standing orders. The petitioner filed an application for payment of gratuity before respondent No. 2, the Controlling Authority, appointed by the State Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent No. 1 before the respondent No. 2, contending that the appropriate Government in the case of the petitioner was the Central Government and not the. State Government and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 who was appointed by the State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the petitioner. On 31-12-1982 the respondent No. 2 passed a common order in several cases including the case of the petitioner holding that the State Government was not the appropriate Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram Rajaram Ahir and ors. Vs. Sonvati W/O Kashiram Ahir and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ610
ORDERR.D. Shukla, J.1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4-4-1985 of Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1984 (arising out of the judgment and order dated 28-7-1984 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikar, passed in Criminal Case No. 430 of 1983), whereby conviction of the applicant No. 1 under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years; and conviction of applicants Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 494 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months each, has been affirmed.2. The brief history of the case is that the non-applicant Sonvati, claiming herself to be the lawfully married wife of the applicant No. 1 Kashiram, filed a complaint on 31-1-1983, with the allegations that she was marrie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »