Madhya Pradesh Court May 1994 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.
Gomati and ors. Vs. Sarman and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ1291
S.K. Dubey and A.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. Heard counsel.2. Deceased Vijay Singh (M.A. No. 55 of 1992), aged 28 years and deceased Banwari Lal (M.A. No. 56 of 1992), aged 24 years, died in a motor accident on 27.9.1988 at about 7.00 p.m. while they were going on their bicycles from Morena city to their villages on Sabalgarh road. Truck No. CPG 68, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 during the course of employment of respondent No. 2, dashed against their bicycles. The said truck was insured by respondent No. 3 with an unlimited liability.3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in Claim Case No. 46 of 1989, for the death of Vijay Singh, taking the multiplicand of Rs. 350/-per month and yearly of Rs. 4,200/-, multiplied by 15 = Rs. 63,000/- plus Rs. 10,0007- towards special damages and Rs. 600/-, the damage to the bicycle, in all Rs. 73,600/-, determined as compensation and after deducting 15 per cent towards lump sum payment, ...
B.B. Pande and Sons (Huf) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ596
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family represented by its karta. The wealth-tax assessment in regard to the Hindu undivided family has been completed for the year 1991-92. The total health was valued at Rs. 6,15,000 and the taxable wealth at Rs. 4.15 lakhs. The assessment for the year 1992-93 is pending. For the year 1993-94, the exemption limit is Rs. 15 lakhs. For the assessment year 1993-94, the petitioner did not submit a return under Section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). The Assessing Officer, respondent No. 2, issued annexure 'A' notice to the petitioner under Section 14(4)(i) of the Act requiring him to submit a return. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, Section 16A has been inserted which provides for reference of the valuation of an asset to a Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer referred the valuation in this case to the third respondent, Valuation Officer. The third respondent issued annexure 'C' notice...
Dayal Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. L.K. Pandey, Deputy Labour Commissioner ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR197]; (1995)IILLJ165MP
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of laminates. The respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on March 29, 1994 (Annexure- 'P/2') directing the petitioner to show-cause till April 4, 1994 as to why the revenue recovery certificate for the recovery of Rs. 21,620.30 p. be not issued against it. The petitioner could not show the cause because this notice itself was served on the petitioner only on April 6, 1994. The respondent No. 1, however, on April 4, 1994 itself passed the order against the petitioner (Annexure-'P/3') directing recovery of the aforesaid sum under Sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 through Revenue Recovery Certificate. The petitioner on April 12, 1994 wrote (Annexure-'P/4') to respondent No. 1 complaining that the notice was served only on April 6, 1994 and as such the petitioner was ...
Milan Supari Stores Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC165(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner is a registered firm and carries on business at Indore. It is registered as a dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act'). It was assessed to sales tax for the period from April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986. The respondent No. 1 issued notice (annexure A) in form XVI under Section 19(1) of the Act to the petitioner on the linchpin of belief that certain transactions, liable to tax of the aforesaid period have escaped assessment rendering it liable to be reassessed and also liable to penalty. This notice (annexure A) is challenged in this petition.2. The respondents have filed the return supported by affidavit. It is averred that specified authority has investigated the matter, collected details and discovered transactions and accounts indicative of the concealment of purchases and sales in Madhya Pradesh and of consequent evasion of tax. It is asserted that a case of escaped assessment necessitating action under Section 19(1) o...
Sunder Lal Vs. Kamlabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC667
M.S. Tamaskar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.1988 passed by Mr. S.K. Chawla, Sessions Judge, Betual, reversing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Betual in Misc. Judicial Case No. 35/87 on 14.1.1988, the applicant begs to prefer this revision-petition on the following facts and grounds amongst others. .2. Heard Mr. Fakhruddin, Counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.L. Kochar, Counsel for the non-applicant.3. This is a revision against the grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., by the Revisional Court.4. The Trial Court rejected the application for maintenance on the finding that there was no cruelty. However, the learned Revisional Court considering the statements of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 hold that the non-applicant was entitled for grant of maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month.5. The non-applicant has not filed by revision for enhancement of the maintenance.6. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Revisional Court has...
B. B. Pande and Sons (Huf) Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)122CTR(MP)178; [1995]213ITR76(MP)
U. L. BHAT C. J. - The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family represented by its karta. The wealth-tax assessment in regard to the Hindu undivided family has been completed for the year 1991-92. The total wealth was valued at Rs. 6,15,000 and the taxable wealth at Rs. 4.15 lakhs. The assessment for the year 1992-93 is pending. For the year 1993-94, the exemption limit is Rs. 15 lakhs. For the assessment year 1993-94, the petitioner did not submit a return under section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). The Assessing Officer, respondent No. 2, issued annexure A notice to the petitioner under section 14(4)(i) of the Act requiring him to submit a return. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, section 16A has been inserted which provides for reference of the valuation of an asset to a Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer referred the valuation in this case to the third respondent, Valuation Officer. The third respondent issued annexure C notice to ...
Smt. Sarmishtha Devi Surve and ors. Vs. Lal Saheb Surve and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1996MP13; 1995(0)MPLJ618
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. One Sadashivrao Surve had three sons, they are Dattaji Rao, Lal Saheb Surve, Cheema Saheb Surve. Satyawati and Indumati are the widows of Sadashivrao Surve. Smt. Sharmishtha widow of Tatya Saheb Surve filed a suit for partition. In these proceedings, Smt. Satyawati and Smt. Indumati were also parties. A preliminary decree was passed. It was during the pendency of further proceedings, which were being prosecuted with a view to secure a final decree, Smt. Satyawati and Smt. Indumati died. It is stated that Smt. Satyawati left a Will dated 20th of January, 1983 and Smt. Indumati left a Will dated I7th of February, 1979. On the basis of these two Wills applications were filed under Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Shambhajirao and Jairaj. They are the grandsons of Lalasaheb Surve arid Cheemasaheb Surve. The trial Court examined the matter in terms of Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and came to a conclusion that the Wills are genuine-...
Kamta Prasad and ors. Vs. Smt. Vidyawati and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994MP181; 1995(0)MPLJ127
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This revision is by the pen-dente lite purchasers against the order dated 30-6-1992, passed in Civil Suit No. 5A of 1990 by the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhind, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order I, Rule 10, GPC and under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC was dismissed.2. The necessary facts giving rise to this petition are these. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the defendants-respondents No. 2 and 3, are the members of the one family. The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and injunction and for possession of her share in agricultural land and a house. After notice the defendants appeared in the suit and sought time for filing written statement and for that the case was adjourned from time to time. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 2, Ramdulare executed two sale-deeds on 18-9-1991 in favour of the petitioners, transferring 11 Bighas and 6 Biswas which was part of the suit land of 17 Bighasf 16 Bi...
Rakesh Kumar Saxena Vs. Sadhna Saxena and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC614
Taj Shanker, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 is directed against the order dated 22-3-93 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Cr. Revision Petition Nos. 45/90 and 4/90.2. It appears that a petition Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate for maintenance of non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 claiming themselves to be wife and son respectively of applicant Rakesh Kumar Saxena. The petition was contested and was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 23-11-89. A sum of Rs. 300/- per month was awarded to the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 200/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 respectively. Both parties preferred revision petition. Revision Petition No. 4/90 was preferred by the present applicant Rakesh Kumar Saxena and non-applicants preferred Revision Petition No. 45/90. As they relate to the same case, they were heard together and decided on 22-3-93. The learned Revising Court dismissed the Revision Petition No. 4/90 of the present appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›