Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Zumkabai Vs. Santu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-25-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC399
K.M. Agrawal, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff/wife is directed against the reversing judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. It was admitted for hearing on 19-4-1983 on the following substantial question of law :--'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned lower appellate Court, while upsetting the judgment and decree of the lower Court has committed an error of law in negativing the appellant-wife's claim for maintenance against the respondent, who is her husband, by ignoring and misreading the evidence and material on record, contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act ?'2. It does not appear necessary to narrate the facts in detail for disposing of the second appeal. Suffice it to say that the appellant is the wife for the respondent. She is living separately from the husband. She filed suit for maintenance of Rs. 40/- per month against her husband and claimed a charge on the suit land for payment for the alimony. The...
Chaitram Verma and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994MP74; 1993(0)MPLJ572
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners are bhumiswamis of lands notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 4-7-91 to be acquired for 'public purpose' and challenge legal validity thereof by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The lands in question have also been declared under Section 6 of the Act as acquired and awards in respect thereof passed by the respondent No. 1. The declaration dated 24-2-92 (Annexure R-IV) under Section 6 of the Act and awards dated 27-5-1992 are also challenged as illegal in this petition. 2. It appears that pursuant to the industrial policy of the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh, industrialists from all over the country were offered concessions, facilities and benefits and invited to establish industries in the State. The respondent No. 4, pursuant to this invitation gave their consent to the Industries Department of the State and Audyogik Vikas Nigam to establ...
Dr. K.C. Malhotra Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1993
Reported in: AIR1994MP48
Dubey, J.1. Petitioner, who is a medical practitioner by profession, has preferred this petition by way of public interest litigation annexing with the petition newspaper cuttings of 1991 and 1992todemonstratcthatfor want of performing the primary and obligatory duties by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and Public Health and Public Health Engineering Departments, in the locality of Pardi Mohalla, of State of Madhya Pradesh, due to open drain, filthy water, heaps of dirt and contaminated water and rubbish, there was spread of epidemic of cholera, resulting in deaths of 12 children in 1991 and also deaths in 1992. Therefore, the petitioner prays for issuance of directions to the State and the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, to take all necessary measures to eradicate the menace.2. Municipal Corporation in its return denied the averments and stated that the safai Karmacharies of the Municipal Corporation regularly clean and remove the heaps of rubbish under the supervision of the super...
Gulabchand Motilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(MP)64; [1994]205ITR62(MP)
V.S. Kokje, J. 1. This is a petition by an income-tax assessee against the refusal of the Income-tax Department to refund the amount of tax which became refundable as the effect of the decision of this court. In M. C. C. No. 66 of 1985 (Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 117), this court, answering a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of this very petitioner, held that reassessments for the period for the assessment year 1971-72 onwards were barred by limitation, by virtue of Sub-section (2A) of Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After the decision in M. C. C. No. 66 of 1985 (Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 117), the petitioner applied for refund of tax deposited with the Income-tax Department for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75. After a lot of correspondence and the assessee running from pillar to post, ultimately, the Income-tax Officer, Ratlam, on September 19, 1988, wrote to the petitioner informing him that the ...
Manmohan LaxminaraIn and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ40
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the accused persons against framing of charge under Section 498A and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against them.2. According to the prosecution information about the crime was received through a letter addressed to the Hon'ble the Prime Minister of. India by one Shankarlal Dubey resident of 638, Gol Bazar, Jabalpur and on investigation it was found that the daughter of the complainant/Shankarlal Dubey named Neelima alias Nilu was married to accused Captain Sudeep Pandey the son of the other two accused persons on 24-2-1988. Even after receiving dowry of about Rs.l,50,000/-incash and kind, the accused persons were not satisfied and, therefore, used to torture Neelima since 25-2-1988 and ultimately, accused/Capt. Sudeep Pandey gave a blow on abdomen to Neelima while she was admitted to a Military Hospital as a result of which she died on 30-1 -1989.3. After investigation ...
Amiya Kumar Dutta Vs. Krishna Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ218
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Single Bench of this Court whereby the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1986 for possession of the suit property and directing eviction of the respondents from the suit premises was set aside.2. The plaintiff /appellant filed a suit for possession of the suit property, i.e. 2.27 acres of land forming part of Khasra No. 242/2 at village Namna Kala, district Surguja. As per the plaint allegations, on 4-10-1974 an agreement of lease was executed of the suit property by the appellant in favour of Shri Sardar Hakim Singh, son of late Shri Sher Singh (Hakim Singh died during the pendency of the proceedings and the present respondents were substituted in his place as L.Rs. on 3-3-1983) for a period of one year, i.e. from 1st day of September 1974 to 30th August, 1975, on payment of Rs. 50/- per month. The period of lease expired on 30th August, 1975 and, therefore, the appellant claimed posse...
Godrej Food Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1993
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC220; 1993LC426(MP); 1993(68)ELT28(MP); 1994(0)MPLJ148
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is a petition challenging a show cause notice dated 19th/21st September, 1990 issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Indore invoking the larger limitation of 5 years under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the 'Act').2. The petitioners manufacture a product which they insist is 'Soya Milk' whereas the Respondents contend that the product is not Soya Milk but is a beverage of Soya Milk waste product in different flavours which according to the Respondents can be described as 'flavoured Soya Milk beverages'. The petitioners have placed on record material to support their contention that the product is nothing but 'Soya Milk' and the Department had also placed material in support of their contention that the product is not 'Soya Milk' but is flavoured Soya Milk beverages.3. The impugned show cause notice has not started the controversy. It is already under the adjudicatory process provided by the Act. The e...
Gulabchand Motilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Others.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)119CTR(MP)64; [1993]205ITR62(MP)
V. S. KOKJE J. - This is a petition by an income-tax assessee against the refusal of the Income-tax Department to refund the amount of tax which became refundable as the effect of the decision of this court. In M.C.C. No. 66 of 1985 (Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 117), this court, answering a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of this very petitioner, held that reassessments for the period for the assessment year 1971-72 onwards were barred by limitation, by virtue of sub-section (2A) of section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After the decision in M.C.C. No. 66 of 1985 (Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 117 the petitioner applied for refund of tax deposited with the Income-tax Department for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75. After a lot of correspondence and the assessee running from pillar to post, ultimately, the Income-tax Officer, Ratlam, on September 19, 1988, wrote to the petitioner informing him that the Departm...
Panjon Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC141; 1993LC432(MP)
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. By the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the show cause notice dated 3.2.1992 (Ann.P.11 issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. 2. The petitioner is a registered company manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines; one such preparationis known as 'Swad'. As per notice (Ann. P.11) the goods manufactured by the petitioners have beenclassified under sub-head 3003.30 as Ayurvedic medicament. Now the department contends that theproducts are classifiable under sub-head 2107.91 (miscellaneous edible preparations). Two grounds havebeen assigned for this proposed classification under sub-head 2107.91. 1. Noticee's products have no therapeutic or prophylactic uses; and2. Products are not known as Ayurvedic medicines in common parlance nor used as medicines. It is the petitioners case that Swad in an Ayurvedic product although it includes other ingredients which have an authoritative Ayurvedic text books Bhavprakash. 3. Shri Math...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›