Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Bholaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR584(MP)
1. This is a reference under Section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, made at the instance of the Revenue against the order dated February 21, 1984 (annexure 'C'), of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, though the Tribunal has observed that the question of law does not arise.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent/assessee had 60 per cent. share in the firm, Indira Glass Emporium, Jabalpur, and other partners had 40 per cent. share therein. During the assessment year 1977-78, there was a change in the constitution of the firm and a third partner was inducted in the firm having 25 per cent. share and thereby reducing the share of the assessee to 40 per cent. and that of the second partner to 55 per cent. The Gift-tax Officer was of the view that the firm had goodwill and introduction of a third partner in the firm amounted to gift by the assessee to the extent of 20 per cent. shares. He, therefore, valued the goodwill of the firm and taxed 20 per cent. of i...
Bundelkhand Travels Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ1104
ORDERA.K. Mathur, A.C.J.1. All the three petitions involve similar question of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. For convenience disposal of these cases, the facts given in W.P. No. 2226/95, Mis Vikas Travels v. State of M. P. and anr. are taken into consideration.2. The petitioner by this petition has prayed that the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur may be directed to issue renewal slip of regular permit No. PsTs. No. 2/84 on the route Mandla to Seoni via Nainpur. It is also prayed that sub-rule (3) of Rule 72 and sub-rule (1)(a) of the Rule 73 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 be declared invalid/uftra vires being unworkable and being framed in excess of the rule making authority under the Motor Vehicles Act.3. The petitioner has a fleet of 9 buses. He is having 5 regular permits. The list of the permits and the buses has also been shown in the application form of renewal application. The petitioner is being granted continuous temporary per...
Hanumandas and anr. Vs. Tersi Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC225
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 24.1.1990 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No. 69/1987 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation of the amount in favour of the respondent and against the appellants.2. The facts of the case are that on 6.4.1987 at about 7.00 to 8.00 a.m., appellant No. 1 Hanumandas was going to Rewa from Gudh-Rewa road on the Motor-Cycle No. CPA-4756, which was registered in the name of appellant No. 2 Tejbali Chourasia. Near village Khadda, appellant Hanumandas gave a dash to claimant/respondent Tersi Bai, when she was going towards village Khadda from the left side of the road, which resulted in the serious injury to the right leg of said Tersi Bai. Because of the aforesaid accident, tibia and fibula bone of the right leg of claimant Tersi Bai got fractured and after the treatment there was...
Anand Swaroop Tiwari Vs. Ram Ratan Jatav and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ141
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. First respondent herein filed a complaint before the Special Court, Bhind under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) alleging that the petitioner and second respondent committed offences punishable under Section 342, Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Special Court took cognizance and issued process. The revision petitioner challenges this order contending that since the Sessions Court has been specified as the Special Court, it cannot take cognizance of any offence without committal order by a competent Magistrate.2. The earliest decision of this Court on this controversy is one by Pandey, J. in Sukhlal Jatav v. State of M. P., 1993 MPLJ 875, 1993 JLJ 679 taking the view that a case under the Act cannot be committed to the Special Court and the Special Court is a Court of original Jurisdiction and is entitled to take cognizance without committal. Hon. Dwivedi, J. in Me...
Shaitan @ Jitendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ184
ORDERShacheendra Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioners are being tried by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code.2. At the trial, the prosecution had examined Smt. Kala, Smt. Kaushalya and Prakash, as eye-witnesses. The prosecution had closed its evidence on 11-3-1995. At that stage, the petitioners filed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code enclosing the affidavits of the above witnesses, which were contrary to the statements given by them at the trial and had prayed to the trial Court for recalling the witnesses.3. The application was opposed by the State and it was contended that the documents were doubtful and were filed very late. The action of the accused-petitioners was mala fide. It was, therefore, prayed that the application of the petitioners-accused persons be rejected.4. The learned trial Court considered the application and the affidavits. The Court found that if the affidavits had existed at t...
Firm Essar Steels Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(51)ECC120
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner firm has set up a factory at Mandsaur to manufacture twisted bars. The products of the petitioner are subject to Central Excise Duty under the Central Excise Tariff. The respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 7.8.1993 (Annexure I) demanding duty of Rs.1,09,761/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner felt that it is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 202/88. Dubbing the aforesaid order (Annexure I), as illegal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the order and. (illegible) declaration about exemption. 3. The respondents have filed the return in opposition. 4. I have heard both the...
Thirath Prasad S/O Ram Milan and ors. Vs. Mohanlal S/O Buddha and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ130
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Appellants are the sons of Ram Milan, who died in an accident on 30-3-1980. His widow and children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle Ramchandra died on 20-3-1983. The first claimant also died. On 10-4-1985, the remaining claimants filed two applications one to implead the legal representatives of the owner and the other, to refer to themselves as the legal representatives of the rest claimant. By that time, the proceedings had become abated. On that ground, the application to implead the L. Rs. of deceased owner was dismissed. However, the other application was allowed. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in its entirety on the ground of abatement. This award is now under challenge.2. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the claim against the driver, owner and the insurer is joint and several and, theref...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: 1997ACJ1293
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 10.8.1988 passed by the Vth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 93 of 1987. The learned Tribunal by the impugned award dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant Ramesh Chandra for award of compensation for the damage caused to his truck No. MPO 1850.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 31.5.1980 at about 5.30 to 6 in the morning, driver Badri, PW 3, was going from Indore to village Kajlana by truck No. MPO 1850, when he reached at a distance of about 5 km. from the village Dharampuri then he saw bus No. CPH 8473 of M.P.S.R.T.C. coming from the opposite direction. The alleged bus was Kota-Indore passenger bus which was driven by driver Lekhraj, respondent No. 2. Truck No. MPO 1850 and the passenger bus No. CPH 8473 collided together at the time of crossing, which resulted in an accident causing damage to both the vehicles and some passengers, travelling in the passe...
Thirath Prasad and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ520
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Appellants are the sons of Ram Milan, who died in an accident on 30.3.1980. His widow and children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle, Ramchandra, died on 20.3.1983. The first claimant also died. On 10.4.1985, the remaining claimants filed two applications- one to implead the legal representatives of the owner and the other, to refer to themselves as the legal representatives of the first claimant. By that time, the proceedings had become abated. On that ground, the application to implead the legal representatives of the deceased owner was dismissed. However, the other application was allowed. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in its entirety on the ground of abatement. This award is now under challenge.2. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the claim against the driver, owner and the insurer is joint and...
Rameshchandra Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC651
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 10.8.1988 passed by the Vth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 93 of 1987. The learned Tribunal by the impugned award dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant Rameshchandra for award of compensation for the damage caused to his Truck No. M.P.O. 1850.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 31.5.1980 at about 5.30 to 6 in the morning, Driver Badri (P. W. 3) was going from Indore to village Kajlana by truck No. M.P.O. 1850, when he reached at a distance of about 5 kms. from village Dharampuri then he saw Bus No. C.P.H. 8473 of M.P.S.R.T.C. coming from the opposite direction. The alleged Bus was Kota-Indore passenger bus which was driven by the driver, Respondent No. 2, Lekhraj. The truck No. M.P.O. 1850 and the passenger bus No.C.P.H. 8473 collided together at the time of crossing, which resulted in an accident causing damage to both the vehicles and some passengers, tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »