Madhya Pradesh Court December 1995 Judgments
Surendra ElvIn Ali Vs. Smt. Maureen Ali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC469
R.S. Garg, J.1. The wife in her petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act filed an application for gant of ad-interim maintenance on the grounds that she herself was earning about Rs. 2000/- and was also earning something from private tuitions, she was to maintain herself and two children residing with her; the husband was earning Rs. 5000/- or more, and therefore, the maintenance and litigation expenses be awarded to the wife.2. The husband in the petition contested and submitted that the wife was earning more than Rs. 3000/-and was also earning from tuitions, the wife just two months before the date of her evidence took away the child from school only to create evidence in her favour that they are living with her.3. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the salary of the husband was Rs. 6000/-, wife was earning about Rs. 3700/- per month, the wife was also looking after and maintaining two children of the wed...
Tag this Judgment!Man Bharan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ671
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused/appellant, who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for life by judgment dated 30-10-1985 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Satna in S. T No. 18 of 1986.2. Undisputably, the deceased Lekhansingh and the accused/appellant Man Bharan Singh are real brothers. The prosecution case stated in brief is that there was a dispute between the accused/appellant Man Bharan Singh and his brother deceased Lekhansingh over the passage from the field. On 30-10-1985 at about 9.00 A.M. in the morning, while the deceased Lekhansingh was going to his field, the accused/appellant came out from hiding and assaulted the deceased Lekhansingh with a stick. The deceased Lekhansingh sustained injuries on his head and other parts of his body and fell down. On the deceased shouting for help, attention of Sadhusingh (P.W.6) and Ayodhya (P.W.7) was drawn and they came on...
Tag this Judgment!Noshirwan and ors. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: [1996]222ITR302(MP)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioners by this petition have prayed that the notices issued under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the respondent annexures 'H', 'H-1', ''H-2', 'H-3' and 'J' may be quashed and the respondent be prohibited from further proceeding in pursuance of the abovementioned notices.2. Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of the late Shri Manoharji Godrej and petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 are his daughters. The petitioners are related as brothers and sisters belonging to the same family. The petitioners are Parsi by caste. Respondent No. 1 is the Wealth-tax Officer, A-Ward, Indore, and has jurisdiction to assess the petitioners under the Wealth-tax Act. The assessment years involved in the present petition are 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The petitioners jointly own five properties-(1) Godrej Mansion, 110, Ushaganj, Indore, (2) Gul Mansion, 9, Maharani Road, Indore, (3) Flat No. 8, Mistry Court, Bombay, (4) Show Room at Imami Gate, Bhopal, and (5) a building s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nisha Singhal Vs. M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP212; 1996(0)MPLJ469
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20-8-1994, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, being M. P. No. 445 of 1993, has been dismissed.2. The facts, not in dispute, are that MIG House No. 185 in Pandit Dindayal Nagar Colony of Gwalior was allotted to the appellant under the Housing Hire-Purchase Scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. The agreed price payable by instalments was Rs. 1,58,000/- which the appellant is prepared to pay and states that, in fact, has been paid by now. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned demand (Annexure-P/9) whereby some excess money, not initially agreed, is being demanded, resulting in enhancement of the cost of the house to Rs. 1,93,653/-. The contention of the appellant before the learned single Judge in the writ petition was that the additional price claimed under several heads is contrary to the terms of the agreement reached between the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2593; 1996(0)MPLJ898
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the detenu Omprakash alias Bhola who has been detained by an order dated 31-3-1995 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act'), by the District Magistrate Sarguja, at Ambikapur.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these: A report (Annexure R. 1) to the return date 31-3-1995 by the Superintendent of Police was submitted to the District Magistrate, Sarguja wherein after stating the instances of activities of the detenu a prayer was made that an order under Section 3(2) of the Act be passed with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Along with the report copies of Rojnamcha San has right from 11th June, 1989 were also enclosed. The detaining Authority on his subjective satisfaction in relation to the activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushal Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Predesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2268
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused/appellant, who has been convicted under Sections 302, 328,498A of the Indian Penal Code by I Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh by his judgment dated 21-10-1986 in S.T.No. 53/1986 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- R.I. for 10 years & fine of Rs. 100/- and R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/- respectively for the aforementioned offences.2. Undisputably, Vishnu Priya, who was the daughter of Ravishanker (P.W. 1) and niece of Bimbadhar (FW. 2) and was married to accused appellant, died on 19-5-1985 at village Moha Pali.. The report of the death was lodged by Bimbadhar (PW-2) at P.S. Raighar which was recorded as Merg Intimation, as per Ex. P/18. Inquest Report, as per Ex. P/19, was prepared in the presence of Panch witnesses and the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination as per memo (Ex. P/20). Postmortem was conducted by Dr. A.L. Baleni (PW. 5),...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP154; 1996(0)MPLJ798
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner in his application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs :--(i) That, an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued quashing the adjourned meetings dated 28-1-1995 and 3-2-1995 called vide Annexures P/3 and P/4 as null and void and non est. (ii) That, it be ordered that the adjourned meetings held on 28-1-1995 and 3-2-1995 were not in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder, ultra vires of the same and consequently the entire business done or transacted at such meeting including the declaration about constitution/formation of the Standing Committee and other Committees be declared to be void, ineffective and non-est. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present Writ Application are that the election of Corporators of Indore Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') was decl...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Cut Piece Centre Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: [1997]225ITR839(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The applicant-assessee has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act').2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant is a partnership firm carrying on the business of sale and purchase of cloth. Initially, Smt. Gangabai and her son, Ramchandra, were partners of the firm in equal shares. The firm came into existence on March 24, 1974, and was got registered under the Act. Subsequently, another partner, named Smt. Indirabai, was introduced and the shares were revised. The applicant applied for registration of this newly constituted firm under the Act for the assessment year 1976-77. Registration was refused by the Income-tax Officer but in appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the registration of the firm. The non-applicant/Department preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore. The appeal was allowed and the registration was refused. Aggrieved, the applicant filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta Devi Vs. Harish Kumar @ Purshottam and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC551
Tej Shanker, J.1. This appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 1.11.91 passed by the Seventh Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, decreeing the claim of the respondent Harish Kumar for annulment of the marriage Under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner, Harish Kumar, alleged that he and respondent No. 1, Smt. Geetadevi, were married on 10.12.1980 and respondent No. 1 came to Gwalior. On that date as well as on next day other customs were performed. Ultimately on 15.12.1980 the brother of respondent No. 1 took her after Vidai. In the night of 10.12.80 at about 12 hours there was noise of firing. The relations of the respondents disclosed that dacoits had reached there and an encounter was going on. On the next day at the time of Vida the ornaments were not sent on account of fear. In the night of 11.12.80 and subsequent nights till 14.12.80 re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ585
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. To tax or not to tax is the question. On applications of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), the Board of Revenue operating as a Tribunal under the Act, has referred the under noted common question of law, arising out of its common order dated 17-4-1982 passed in Appeals, Nos. 37, 49, 50 and 231/PBR/1981 and order dated 20-12-1985 passed in Appeal No. 63/PBR/1985 preferred by the assessee for the Assessment Years of 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1978, in these four cases which are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Board of Revenue, acting as a Tribunal under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, was justified in holding that the canteen sales were not exigible to tax.2. Initially, these cases were laid before the Division Bench of this Court where it was pointed out that two Division Ben...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »