Madhya Pradesh Court January 1996 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 Income-tax Vs. Bajranglal Dwarka Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR649(MP)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue and the following two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal to this court for answer, which read as under :' (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the loss of Rs. 1,32,558 on account of theft of ornaments pawned with the assessee, a moneylender, as security for the loans, claimed in loss return for the Diwali year 1979 filed on December 2, 1982, revising original return filed belatedly on July 28, 1980, could be considered and allowed. ? (ii) Whether loss of ornaments held as security and not as stock-in-trade in money-lending business be allowed as deduction under Section 28 ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm and it deals in money-lending business. A theft took place at the house of the assessee in the intervening night of November 2 and 3, 1978, and pawned silver ornaments of the value of Rs. 1,32,559 and cash of Rs. 2,000 were taken away. It is s...
Mpsrtc Vs. Vestibai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ498MP
ORDERTiwari, J.1. The unsuccessful appellants has filed this Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated May 28, 1993 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Indore in Case No. 24/88 thereby directing the appellant to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.62, 107 together with interest @ 12% per annum from April 19, 1988 as also a sum Rs. 53, 586 as penalty @ 25% within a period of 60 days from the date of the order.2. Factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. Pratap was the employee of the appellant on the bus as a driver. On April 17, 1988 he was on duty on the bus bearing registration No. CPO-9034. While taking the bus from Barwani to Indore, an accident occurred in the night at 1.00 a.m. The employee Pratap suffered injuries in this accident and later succumbed to death. Vestibai, widow of the deceased and Kumari Padma, the daughter of the deceased Pratap, filed an applic...
Prakash Vs. Amrutlal Jaiswal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ863
N.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the award dated 20th August, 1994 passed by VIth Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in his Claim Case No. 64/91 awarding him compensation of Rs. 81,931/- against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and not against Insurance Company (respondent No. 3).2. Briefly stated facts as unfolded are that the claimant met with an accident, occurring on 22-4-1991 at 5.30 p.m. on Nemawar Road, near Indore, by the truck bearing registration number MPM 3265 owned by the respondent No. 1 and driven by the respondent No. 2. The appellant fractured his right leg which had to be ultimately amputated. The vehicle was insured earlier with the New India Insurance Company Ltd., upto 15-3-1991 but instead of obtaining a renewal, a fresh insurance was taken from the respondent No. 3 (the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,) on 22nd April, 1991 which is the date of the accident. These facts along with the fi...
Prakash Vs. Amrutlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC502; 1996ACJ940
N.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, from the award dated 20.8.1994 passed by VIth Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in his Claim Case No. 64 of 1991 awarding him compensation of Rs. 81,931/- against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and not against insurance company, respondent No. 3.2. Briefly stated, facts as unfolded are that the claimant met with an accident, occurring on 22.4.1991 at 5.30 p.m. on Nemawar Road, near Indore, by the truck bearing registration No. MPM 3265 owned by the respondent No. 1 and driven by the respondent No. 2. The appellant fractured his right leg which had to be ultimately amputated. The vehicle was insured earlier with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. up to 15.3.1991 but instead of obtaining a renewal, a fresh insurance was taken from the respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., on 22.4.1991 which is the date of the accident. These facts along with the finding of the Tribunal that t...
Atul Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3301
T.S. Doabia, J.1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision No. 219 of 1994, also as in both these petitions same legal issue has been raised. The facts have, however, been taken from Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1995.2. Proceedings have been initiated under Section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdhistha Bhrashta Acharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The initiation of these proceedings was challenged in the Court below. It was contended that there is non-compliance of Section 39 of the Adhiniyam. It was specifically urged that cognizance of this case could not be taken because there was no direction given by the State Government of the officer authorised by a notification under the section. It be seen that Section 39 was amended in 1984. It would, therefore, be apt to notice the amended as well as unamended provisions. These read as under :Unamended Amended1. Cognizance of Offences. Section 39. Cognizance39. All offence under this of Offences. Al...
Ramdulari Agarwal Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ63
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the 5th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.2. The facts of the case are as under :-That the applicant has applied for sanction of map for construction to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. According to the applicant, his application for sanction was rejected on 5-2-1990. He acquired knowledge of the order on 20-3-1990. He applied for copy on 21-3-1990 which was received by him on 6-9-1990. After receiving the certified copy he filed the appeal under section 293(3) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, on 21-9-1990 an affidavit before the appellate Court was also filed stating that the information about the order dated 5-2-1990 was acquired on 20-3-1990. The lower appellate Court held that the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the passing of the order. Since the appeal has not been filed within time it has...
Tilakraj Sharma Vs. Shyamabai Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ72
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of eviction and refusal to grant leave to defend passed by the Rent Controlling Authority.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows : Landlady Shyamabai Tiwari filed an application for ejectment under section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on 24-7-1991. Notices were issued to the tenant-applicant and the tenant applicant entered his appearance through his counsel on 13-8-1991 and sought time to file reply. The case continued thereafter on different dates. On 11-12-1991, an objection was raised by the tenant applicant before the Rent Controlling Authority that summons have not been served upon him as provided under section 23-B of the Act. This objection was decided on 27-3-1992 and the Rent Controlling Authority directed summons to be issued to the tenant as provided under section 23-B of the Act. The summons as required under the law were served upon the tenant on 22-4-1992. The case was fixed for 28...
Hargovind Johari Vs. Zila Panchayat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ409
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. Can a meeting summoned with a view to express no confidence can be adjourned for want of quorum? This precise question has been raised in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts which have led to the filing of this petition be noticed as under.3. The petitioner is a Member of Zila Panchayat, District Morena. Some Members of the Zila Panchayat moved the competent authority for getting a meeting convened for the purposes of expressing no confidence. This meeting was scheduled to be held on 9th of December, 1995 at 1.30 AM. The presiding officer found that quorum was not available. He adjourned the meeting to 20th of December, 1995. The information given by the presiding officer that the meeting has been adjourned from 9th of December, 1995 to 20th of December, 1995 is contained in Annexure P/l. This is being impugned in the present petition. As indicated above, the basic challenge is that a meeting called for expres...
Prakash Davara and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1996
Reported in: AIR1997MP39; 1996(0)MPLJ1088
A.K. Mathur, Actg. C.J.1. This is a public interest litigation by which the petitioners have prayed that with all the orders issued during Khula Manch on 17-12-1995, at Raipur, for arrest, registration of criminal cases, forfeiture of property and dissolution of Managing Committee of the Housing Societies either at the behest of respondent No. 6 or any other dignitaries is, per se, non est and void. It is also prayed that the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 be prohibited from taking any action against petitioner No. 1 or any other President of Co-operative Society in respect of forfeiture of properties.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are public spirited persons and interested in the well being of the citizens of India. It is alleged that M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 provides for better organisation and development of cooperative movement in the State of M.P. In 1994, the Government decided to arrange Co-operative Lok Adalats in the form of Khula Man...
Ashok Kumar Chopra Vs. Smt. Visandi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1996
Reported in: AIR1996MP226; 1996(0)MPLJ621
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. Heard counsel.The petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that Court process was issued and the witness in question refused to accept the same, the trial Court passed an order that the petitioner would have no right to examine the witness. Earlier the petitioner had shown willingness to bring the witness at his own responsibility. The witness was not present on the date fixed that is on 16th of January, 1996. The tria! Court as noticed above has passed an order that the petititioner would not have a right now to get that witness examined. R. S. Sarkaria, J. who later adorned the Bench of Supreme Court of India in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh v. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishan, AIR 1969 Punj & Har 197, observed as under in these matter (Para 7):--'But it can be said with equal force that there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code which expressly inhibits the service of summonses by this mode, which has come to be known as Dasti process. On the other hand, the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »