Madhya Pradesh Court April 1995 Judgments
Pooran Singh Rajput Vs. Indira Rajput
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-1995
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ280
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present appeal filed by Pooran Singh Rajput is against the judgment and decree dated 30 10-1993 passed by First Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Suit No. 5-A/91 is admittedly beyond time provided for filing the first appeal in the High Court under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is beyond time by 30 days. The appeal so filed was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Act. It was not supported by any affidavit.2. In view of the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3-A of Order 41, Civil Procedure Code, the question which cropped up for consideration is 'whether the appeal as filed, was competent?' Rule 3-A of Order 41, Civil Procedure Code is as extracted below :-'3-A. Application for condonation of delay. - (1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported b...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Agroils Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(59)LC442(MP)
ORDERD. Verma, J.1. This letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner who had filed W.P. No. 1239/93 challenging the show cause notice issued to the appellant.2. The learned Single Judge heard the matter on 15.3.1995 and disposed of the petition with the observations which are reflected in para 11 of the impugned order. It is reproduced here-in-below:11. In the circumstances, I dispose of this petition with the directions as under:(a) The aforesaid show cause/notice (Ann. P. 8) is not quashed but the petitioner is granted liberty to show cause and submit reply to the appropriate Authority within a period of one month from today. The petitioner shall be free to take all pleas and objections as are available under the law.(b) The Appropriate authority shall consider the cause and reply and take appropriate decision as early as possible, in conformity with law, under intimation to the petitioner, by reasoned order.(c) If the...
Tag this Judgment!Murarilal Ramdeo Agarwal Vs. Firm Ganeshilal Gulabchand Naila
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ1031
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant-defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-12-1986, passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 59-A of 1984, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, a Camp Janjgir, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1983, passed in Civil Original Suit No. 82-A of 1980, by the Civil Judge, Class II, Janjgir, has preferred this second appeal against the order of his eviction on the ground of Section 12(l)(a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, pleading that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff on monthly rental of Rs. 170/-. The defendant did not pay rent for the period between June, 1977 to May 1978 and, as such, was in arrears. On 19-6-1978, notice of demand was given to the defendant but despite that he did not deposit rent with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was called upon to file civil suit No. 73-A of 1978, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff unde...
Tag this Judgment!T. K. Warehousing Enterprises P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Central Board of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR305(MP)
A. R. TIWARI J. - This is a petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and petitioner No. 2 is its managing director. The respondents issued a Circular No. 681 (see [1994] 206 ITR 299), dated March 8, 1994, with regard to section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (annexure P-1), which required the deduction of the tax. Respondent No. 4 (Income-tax Officer, (TDS), Bhopal), wrote a letter to petitioner No. 1 on November 15, 1994 (annexure P-2), complaining that the petitioner has failed to make deduction of TDS on the freight charges paid in excess of Rs. 10,000 under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and demanding the particulars of such transactions and conveying that on the failure to do so, it will be treated as an assessee in default and shall be exposed to recovery in accordance with law. Petitioner No. 1 has filed reply on...
Tag this Judgment!Bholakumar and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC634
C.K. Prasad, J. 1. Both the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 306 as also under Section 498A I.P.C and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and three years respectively by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barwaha in S.T. No. 184 of 1991 by order dated 19.4.1993. They were further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence under Section 306 and Rs. 500/- each for offence under Section 498A I.P.C., failing which to suffer imprisonment for six months and three months respectively. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred this appeal.2. According to the prosecution, deceased Neelum @ Meenakumari was wife of appellant No. 1 Bholakumar. Appellant No. 2 Smt. Rajkumari is mother-in-law of the deceased. Appellant No. 1 was married to the deceased in the month of May, 1989. The deceased lived with her husband appellant No. 1 at various intervals and ultimately in December, 1989 she was sent by her father to the place of appella...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlabai Tiwari and ors. Vs. Hukumchand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ291
R.D. Shukla, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.12.1986 of 1st M.A.C.T., Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 4 of 1983 whereby the claim petition of appellant widow of the deceased Shiv Prasad Tiwari has been dismissed with a finding that deceased Shiv Prasad who was driving the jeep No. CPO 73 was himself responsible for the accident.2. This is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 is the owner of truck No. CPO 8012 and respondent No. 2 was the driver of the vehicle on the date of accident, i.e., 16.12.1982. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. There was a collision between the jeep and the truck on 16.12.1982 and Shiv Prasad died.3. The claimant's case, in brief, is that deceased Shiv Prasad was working as a driver under the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. At the time of accident Shiv Prasad was driving the jeep cautiously and keeping it to left side but the truck coming from the opposite direction dashed against it which resulted in injurie...
Tag this Judgment!intazamiya Committee Id Gah, Morar Vs. M.P. Wakf Board, Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP47; 1996(0)MPLJ37
Tej Shankar, J.1. This second appeal raises a short question relating to jurisdiction under the following circumstances:2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the., effect that the letter No. 2426 dt. 22-4-1987 of the defendant through which the management committee of the plaintiff was dissolved and plaintiff No. 2 was removed from the post of Adhyakshya was illegal and it be set aside. A relief for injunction was also claimed restraining the defendant from interfering in the functioning of the plaintiff and removing him from the post of Adhyakshya. It was alleged that there was an Id Gah at Thandi Sadak, Morar which was known as Morar Id Gah. It was registered under the M. P. Wakf Act, 1954 with the M. P. Wakf Board. Plaintiff was Prabandhak of the Id Gah Committee and Mutawalli for the last 10 years and had been performing his duties as Mutawalli. Several litigations were going on with respect to the property of the Id Gah and he had been doing Pairawi. Several comp...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Ghamandilal JaIn Vs. Hazarilal Pyarelal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ762
ORDERTej Shankar, J.1. Whether in view of the provisions of Section 97(2)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 104 of 1976) the right of appeal in suits instituted prior to coming into force of the Amending Act are saved from the clutches of Section 96(4), Civil Procedure Code is only question canvassed in this second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,000/- on the basis of a writing. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had taken a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as loan and executed a note in writing and he did not pay the amount in spite of demand. The suit was contested and the plaint allegations were denied. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred against the decree passed by the trial Court which has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 3-9-1981 holding that the appeal was not maintainable and was covered by the provisions of Section 96(4), Civil Procedure Code as amended and as there was no question of law invo...
Tag this Judgment!Arajpatrit Shashkiya Karmachari Grih Nirman Sanstha, Gwalior Vs. Subha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP39; 1995(0)MPLJ988
ORDERT.S. Doalia, J. 1. This petition under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution has been preferred under following circumstances:-- There is a communication, copy whereof is Annexure P-7. This is dated 27th of August, 1994. In this, it is mentioned that some complaints were received by the concerned Minister at a function which has been described as 'Khula Manch'. These complaints have been referred for investigation and report. It is against the action contemplated by the aforementioned order, Annexure P-7, this petition has been filed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits-(i) The concept of entertaining complaints in a forum known as 'Khula Manch' is not known to law. (ii) The minister could not entertain the complaint because a procedure stands prescribed under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. According to him disputes are referable under Section 64 of the aforementioned Act. It is submitted that the present procedure adopted would amount to en...
Tag this Judgment!Nera Bai W/O Bramh Sahu and ors. Vs. Pusia Bai W/O Bittu Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ87
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-9-1986 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 12A/83 by the learned Additional District Judge, Durg, reversing the judgment and decree dated 9-3-1983 passed in Civil Suit No. 15A/81 by the learned Civil Judge, Class I, have preferred this appeal.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that the agricultural lands ad measuring 1.386 hectares of village Ghoghapuri and 1.222 hectares of village Chaneli were belonging to deceased Hinchharam and he was recorded Bhumiswami of the said lands in the revenue papers. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the grand-daughters of Hinchharam and plaintiff No. 4 is the widow and plaintiff No. 5 is the daughter of Hinchharam. It was submitted that defendant Pusiabai claiming to be daughter of deceased,- Hinchharam filed an application before the revenue authorities for declaring her rights in the property and mutation over it. The plaintiffs contended that defendant Pusiabai in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »