Madhya Pradesh Court January 1995 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.
Smt. Shantidevi Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(MP)141; [1996]217ITR776(MP)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that order dated December 22, 1978 (annexure 'B'), passed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, dated March 26, 1984 (annexure 'F'); notice of demand (annexure 'G') and final notice (annexure 'I') may be quashed. It is also prayed that the Respondents may be directed not to press for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 18,161 as the petitioner cannot be deemed to be an assessee in default.2. The petitioner, Smt. Shantidevi, is a partner in the firm, Hiralal Gulabchand Sethi, Ashok Nagar, District Guna. We are concerned with regard to the assessment year 1976-77 and the relevant accounting year ended on Diwali, 1975. The petitioner submitted a return of total income before respondent No. 1-Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Sagar, showing a total assessable income of Rs. 14,358 which included a share income from the partnership firm, Hiralal Gulabchand, amounting to Rs....
Mangilal Vs. Ratnaprabha and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: I(1995)DMC445
C.K. Prasad, J.1. The wife i.e. Non-applicant No. 1 had filed an application on 16-11-1188 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alirajpur, for grant of maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. as also for her daughter i.e. non-applicant No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 200/-p.m. under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The present petitioner is the husband of the opposite party No. 1 and father of the opposite party No. 2. This fact is not under dispute. The wife and the daughter have filed the application for grant of maintenance stating therein that the opposite party No. 1 was married to the petitioner in the year 1960 in accordance with the Hindu rites. The wife had given birth to two sons and a daughter. According to the wife, the daughter who has one of the applicant before the Magistrate, was minor and she lived with Applicant No. 1. According to them the opposite party Mangilal Jain is the Head Master of Government School and posted at village Sarangi...
Makhan Singh Vs. Kamlabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC573
A.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 12th of December, 1988 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge of Shivpuri, whereby the non-petitioner was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month against the petitioner.2. The petitioner was alleged to have married with the non-petitioner. She was living with the petitioner for sometime. Thereafter the non-petitioner was turned out from the house of the petitioner and she was living with her parents. The non-petitioner had no means to maintain herself. She had filed a petition for maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate concerned.3. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence held that the marriage of the non-petitioner with the petitioner was not proved, and the petition was dismissed.4. Against that order, a revision was preferred, which was heard and decided by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri on 12th of December, 1983 h...
Smt. Kiran Soni Vs. Ramesh Kumar Soni and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC22
Tej Shankar, J.1. This petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for transfer of the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha.2. It has been alleged in the petition that after the marriage of the petitioner took place on 22.5.1986 at Chhatarpur, she came with her husband to Vidisha, her matrimonial home. He father Babulal gave dowry according to his means. The marriage had taken place under the mass marriage function. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- in cash, golden chain, locket etc. etc. were given. After the marriage, the husband and other opposite parties started misbehaving with her, saying that nothing was given in dowry. She was being threatened and forced to bring Rs. 50,000/-, motor-cycle, fan, sofa-set etc. from her father and in case it was not brought she was threatened that she would be killed. She went twice to the husband's house, but she was ill-treated. On 14.6.87, at about 2 a.m. Opposite ...
Mimani Wires (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: 1995LC215(MP); 1995(77)ELT66(MP)
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. This is a petition under Article 216 of the Constitution of India.2. Facts are jejune. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is having its registered office located at 26/3, New Palasia, Indore and it's factory is situate at Pithampur. The petitioner manufactures among other products, winding wires and cables falling under Item No. 33B of the First Schedule of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. By Notification dated 1-3-1984, the Central Government exempted electric wires and cables of specified description (Annexure A). The petitioner, therefore, became liable to pay duty only at the rate of 5% instead of 10% on the raw materials purchased by it. The classification list was provisionally approved under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Collector, however, noticed on 2-6-1984 that the petitioner was liable to pay at the rate of 10% instead of 5% in conformity with Notification dated 1-3-1984 (Annex.C). ...
Suresh Kumar and anr. Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ278; (1998)IIILLJ1051MP
P.N.S. Chouhan, J. 1. On July 14, 1981 when Imrat was coming on a bicycle he was struck down by bus No. MPJ 8697 owned by Respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 3. As a result he died giving rise to Claim Case No. 2 of 1982 decided by M.A.C.T. Chhindwara, on May 2, 1985. It was held that the deceased was an agriculturist earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per year. He had no other source of income. His age was 30-35 years at the time of accident. He left behind a widow, appellant No. 2 and a minor son, appellant No. 1. It was also held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 3. On the basis of Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai, 1980 ACJ 126 (MP) and V. Rajeswara Rao v. Kama Audemma, 1977 ACJ 462 (AP), the Tribunal concluded that a sum of Rs 10,000/- was the just compensation for the death of Imrat to his heirs. Accordingly, award of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realis...
Shilabai and 3 ors. Vs. Ajunabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: I(1995)DMC488
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. An application for Succession Certificate Under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was moved by Smt. Shilabai which was registered as Succession Suit No. 13/88 before the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Balaghat. One Ranglal Pancheshwar was an employee in the Health Department of the State Government and at the time when he expired i.e. on 7.8.88, he was posted at Primary Health Centre, Baihar. He was a Government servant.2. There was a Family Benefit Fund maintained by the State Government. After Ranglal's death, a question arose regarding a payment of the Family Benefit Fund, regarding which an application was made by Ajunabai on 15.8.88, claiming the amount of Family Benefit Fund. On 29.9.88, a letter was sent to Smt. Shilabai (Ex. A-3) stating that since there were two applications, she was directed to obtain the Succession Certificate from the Competent Court so that further action in the matter may be taken. Accordingly. Smt...
Usha Kiran Tiwari Vs. Hari Krishna Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: I(1995)DMC441
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.92 passed in Civil Suit No. 1-A/91 by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Seoni.2. The appellant Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari and respondent Hari Krishna Tiwari are inter se related as husband and wife and their marriage was performed and regarding the performance of marriage, the parties are not at variance that the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites.3. The terms between the husband and wife developed in the negative direction so much so that they led the husband to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Civil Suit No. 30-A/8S. The suit for conjugal rights was decreed on 29.10.88 where against the wife Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari availed the remedy of appeal by filing an appeal in the High Court being Appeal No. 230/88 which was dismissed on 25.10.89. During this period, no conciliatory approach was made and succeeded.4. The husband Shri Hari Krishna Tiwari, o...
Suresh Kumar and anr. Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC640
P.N.S. Chouhan, J.1. On 14.7.1981 when Imrat was coming on a bicycle he was struck down by bus No. MPJ 8697 owned by Respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 3. As a result he died giving rise to Claim Case No. 2 of 1982 decided by M.A.CT Chhindwara, on 2.5.1985. It was held that the deceased was an agriculturist earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per year. He had no other source of income. His age was 30-35 years at the time of accident. He left behind a widow, appellant No. 2 and a minor son, appellant No. 1. It was also held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 3. On the basis of Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai 1980 ACJ 126 (MP) and V. Rajeswara Rao v. Kama Audemma 1977 ACJ 462 (AP), the Tribunal concluded that a sum of Rs 10,000/- was the just compensation for the death of Imrat to his heirs. Accordingly, award of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent petannum from the date of the application till realisation was pas...
Heeralal and 2 ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: I(1995)DMC516
R.P. Awasthy, J.1. It is an appeal against the finding of holding the accused-appellants guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. They have further been held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months.2. It is not in dispute that Pushpa (since deceased) was married to Kanchhedi (appellant No. 2) and she died on 1.7.1987 in the house of the accused-appellants. Bharat Singh, Kotwar of village Bisenkhedi, gave the information regarding to death of Pushpa at the Police Station Parwalia.3. The prosecution case was that the accused-appellants were subjecting Pushpa to cruelty on account of insufficiency of dowry given in the marriage of Pushpa. They used to beat her and to administer her the smoke of chillies...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »