Madhya Pradesh Court November 1993 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.
K.L. Jaiswal Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(MP)508; [1996]221ITR426(MP)
P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. The petitioner is a P. W. D. contractor at Ambikapur and has challenged in this petition the dismissal of his application under Section 18B(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for waiver of penalty amounting to Rs. 16,880. The penalty was imposed under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, of Rs. 16,880 over the petitioner for delay in filing the return. After the imposition of penalty, the petitioner moved an application under Section 18B(4) of the Wealth-tax Act contending therein that on the assessed tax of only Rs. 500, the penalty has been levied of Rs. 16,880 for delay in filing of the return. Levy of penalty is not in consonance with the default committed by the petitioner and the assessment of the wealth-tax, the petitioner further stated that in fact the return has been submitted by him during the period, however, on account of some mistake, the office has not put the correct date of the filing of the return. Looking to the circumstances and the quantu...
Durga Devi Vs. Rajendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: II(1994)DMC428
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal presented under Order 43 Rule (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 10-8-90 rendered by I Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/86 thereby dismissing the application of the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 15 of the Code.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that NA/husband instituted the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. This case was registered as Hindu Marriage Case No. 223/84. On 1-5-85, the case was listed for making an endeavour to bring about re-conciliation between the parties. It appears that the applicant did not remain present on 1-5-85 and as such the case was postponed to 2-5-85 for the purpose of presentation of the written statement as was the date fixed earlier. On 2-5-1985, the applicant remained absent as a result of which the order was pas...
Harvilas and ors. Vs. Tulsiram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ443
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a petition under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, the 'Act'), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for refund of Court fee paid in excess by the plaintiffs/appellants on the memorandum of Second Appeal No. 39 of 1983, decided on 8-8-1983, and on the memo of Civil Appeal No. 188A/81, decided by the District Judge, Shivpuri, on 7-2-1983, between Harvilas and others and Tulsiram and others.2. This Court dismissed the second appeal summarily, observing thus :--'After the matter was remanded by this court, the plaint appears to have been amended, claiming relief of specific performance of the contract, though no court-fee had been paid. Both the courts took the view that in view of the order of the High Court the suit will be treated to be a suit for refund of money, i.e., Rs. 3,400/- only, and not for specific performance of a contract. The appellants are aggrieved by this part of the judgment and decree and submit that it is...
Mandovi Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ910
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. The order dated 12th October, 1993, rendered by the District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 17-A/93 registered on application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'Act'), dismissing applicant's application, moved under Section 41 of the Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code') is under challenge in this revision petition presented under Section 115 of the Code.2. Facts are jejune. The N.A. No. 1 is the Government of India enterprise. The applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and carries the business of manufacturing and sale of Boats. On 12-10-1988, contract was finalised between applicant (seller) and N. A. No. 1 (buyer), on Government's approval for four Petrol Boats to be supplied to Government of Mauritius as gift by Government of India at Rs. 45.10 lacs per boat, thus, total contract value being Rs. 1.804 crores. Some of the material terms, inter alia, were that - a) Shi...
Waman vs. M.P.S.R.T.C.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC378
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This Order shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 407/93 Woman Rao v. M.P. S.R.T.C. and Ors. C.r. No. 408/93 Leelabai v. M.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. and C.R. No. 409/93 Muktabai v. M.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors.2. In this revision petition, as also in the aforesaid three revision petitions, the order passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shajapur refusing the interim award, is under challenge.3. This revision petition pertains to Claim Case No. 45/90 in which order was passed on 3.3.93, C.R. No. 407/93 pertains to order dated 21.4.93 rendered by M.A.C.T. Shajapur in Claim Case No. 27/90, C.R. No. 408/93 relates to the order dated 21.4.93 passed by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case No. 29/90 and C.R. No. 409/93 refers to the order dated 3.3.93 rendered by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case 40/90.4. The aforesaid revision petition is barred by time as there is delay of 122 days in presentation of the sa...
Kanhaiyalal Chhitarji Khati and anr. Vs. Ramkunwarbai Wd/O Jagannath K ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ998
M.V. Tamaskar, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 178-A/1981 decided by Xth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, on 21-4-1986, arising out of Civil Suit No. 28-A/1979 decided on 29-7-1981 by the Civil Judge, Class II, Sanwer.2. This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law :'(i) Whether the learned Judge having found that lands in suit are admittedly ancestral properties, has not erred in passing a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff?(ii) Whether the learned Judge has not erred in invoking Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act for founding a right in the plaintiff to claim partition?'3. The material facts which are involved in this appeal are as under :One Bondar had two sons - Bhagirath and Chitar. Bondar died some 50 years back. Bondar's other brother namely Kisan also died after the death of Bondar. Bhagirath had one son and one daughter - Jagannath and Ramkunwarbai. Jaga...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kadar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC355
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This order shall also dispose of connected matters C.R. No. 357/93. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kadar S/o Bhuraji and Ors. C.R. No. 359/93, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ikbal S/o Allaudin and Ors. C.R. No. 374/93 National Insurance Co. v. Mumtajbi D/o Bhuru Saleem and Ors.2. The aforesaid revision petitions are directed against the order of an interims award passed in each case as under:CR. No. 360/93 Rs. 25000/- together with interest @ 15% p.a. in cases of non-deposit within one month.CR. No. 357/93 Rs. 12000/- together with interest @ 15% p.a. if not depositedin one month.Cr. No. 359/93 Rs. 12000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. if not depositedin one month.Cr. No. 374/93 Rs. 25,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a.3. The orders in three cases have been passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereas the order impugned in Cr. No. 374/93 has been passed by the Commissioner for workmen's compensation (Labour Court) Ujjain.4. I have heard Shri ...
Kailash Chandra Vs. Vinod and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ138
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-8-1993 passed by Hon'ble Shri Justice A. R. Tiwari, in First Appeal No. 11 of 1989 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the VI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in C.O.S. No. 89-A of 1986.2. The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the suit house No. 30, Bade Sarafa, Indore originally belonged to the joint family of deceased Tejpal and deceased Gulzarilal. A partition was effected on 25-2-1953 and the suit house fell to the share of Gulzarilal. The present respondents are the sons of late Gulzarilal and the appellant is the son of Tejpal. A suit for eviction was filed against the appellant by the respondents in respect of the portion occupied by the appellant, initially treating the appellant as a licensee but later on as a tenant. As such the fact that the respondents are the landlords and the appellant is a tenant...
Vasant Kelkar Vs. Dr. P. Ahluwalia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ798
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the landlord/plaintiff/appellant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27-8-1993 passed by the District Court directing remand of a suit for retrial in supersession of the order of the trial Court which had directed the suit to be dismissed.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition may briefly be noticed. Undisputedly, the plaintiff/petitioner is the owner of the suit accommodation, non-residential in nature, where the non-petitioner is a tenant. The suit seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground available under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Jabalpur on 14-9-1987. The trial proceeded. At the stage of evidence on 12-8-1991, an application was filed wherein no provision of law is mentioned. It purports to be signed by both the parties. Therein it was prayed that the matter was am...
Madhu Milan Syntex Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1993
Reported in: 1995(75)ELT743(MP)
ORDERS.K. Jha, C.J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 of which the petitioner No. 2 Bharat Kumar Modi is the Managing Director. It appears from the records of the case that after the petitioners had succeeded in the High Court of M.P. in Misc. Petition No. 1202 of 1989 regarding claim of the classification No. 4/87 by which this Court held that the sample collected before the judgment dated 25th Oct., 1989 could not be used against the petitioner for changing of the classification of the excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act of 1944). It was decided in this petition that the classification submitted by the petitioners would remain intact. The Excise Department, it was further held, was free to proceed against the classification submitted by the petitioners if they felt necessary after taking fresh sample after 25-10-1989. This court further held that it was liable to be set aside and acco...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »