Madhya Pradesh Court August 1991 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.
Chandulal Ghasiram Baradwar and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ381
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. The question is about payment of court-fee. The contention has been that in view of Notification No. F9-1-83-B-XXI, dated 1st April, 1983, issued by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 35 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, the appellants are entitled to exemption from payment of court-fee on the memorandum of appeal, as their annual income immediately preceding the date of presentation of plaint from all sources did not exceed rupees six thousand and that they are covered by that Notification.2. By a detailed order passed on 21-11-1990, it has been held that the exemption provided for in that notification is available in court-fee only in plaint and not in appeal. The view has been that a plain reading of that notification indicates that it applies only to plaint and not to appeal. This was because of non-inclusion of 'appeal' within its fold. The non-inclusion of appeal is deliberate and it is not the function of the Court to substitute wor...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Additional) Vs. Smt. Chandrakanta and Anot ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: (1993)108CTR(MP)82; [1993]205ITR607(MP)
B. C. VARMA J. - This court, vide order dated June 30, 1991, passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 796 of 1974, required the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law for determination by this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) (2) Whether the finding given by the Tribunal could reasonably be arrived at on the basis of material considered by it ?'The relevant assessment year is 1963-64. The assessee-respondent first showed a loss of Rs. 51,530. He then revised his return and showed profit of Rs. 7,500. He was not maintaining any account books. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, estimated and determined the income at Rs. 51,000. Since the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 1,000, the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 as, ac...
Devisahai and ors. Vs. Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP13; 1992(0)MPLJ109
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1-10-1986 passed by the District Judge, Indore in C. S. No. 19-A of 1986 directing the appellant to deliver possession of the suit house to respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 2) and further directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 14,384/- to the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case relevant for decision of this appeal are that one Govindrao Mahadik (deceased) represented by respon-dentNo. 1 executed a possessory mortgage on 26-11-1929 for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of one Devi Sahai, who is dead and represented by his legal representatives, arrayed as respondents Nos. 2(a) to 2(f) and respondent 2(f) having died represented by 2(0 (a) to 2(f)(h). Gyarsilal, original plaintiff No. 2 and Govind Rao Mahadik original plaintiff No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 14 of 1951 in the court of the District Judge, Indore for redemption of the aforesaid mortgage which was in respect of house No. 41...
Smt. Jaskunver Vs. Smt. Kanchanbai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: AIR1991MP362
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-10-85 passed by the Second Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ratlam in Succession Case No. 4 of 1982.2. The facts leading to this revision petition, in short, are that the present applicant filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called the Act) for obtaining succession certificate regarding debts and securities forming part of the estate of the deceased Bhomsingh son of Ramlal Purhohit, aged about 62 years, who died on 10-7-1982 at Ratlam. The applicant claims to be real elder sister of the deceased who had no children or wife surviving him. According to the applicant the deceased had three accounts in the Banks specified in the petition, but she could not know the exact amount of the deposits in the Bank and she was also not in know of the different amounts advanced as loan to different persons. Therefore, she valu-ed the debts and securities provis...
Union Carbide Karmachari Sangh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ875MP; 1993(0)MPLJ271
ORDERS.K. Jha, C.J.1. Three reliefs have been sought in this writ petition, the first and the primary one being the vires and validity of Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The other two reliefs are for reasonable compensation or to provide alternative employment to the employees of the Union Carbide (India) Limited, respondent No. 3, or to pay compensation equal to the wages of the employees concerned. In so far as the latter two reliefs are concerned, they have already been decided in principle by the Supreme Court and we need not traverse those fields.2. In so far as relief No. 1 is concerned with regard to the validity of the provisions of Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the matter stands concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Straw Products v. Union of India 1987-I-LLJ-469 wherein His Lordship Mr. Justice J.S. Verma, Acting Chief Justice (at that time) speaking for the Bench, held that Section 25O(2) was in the wider in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›