Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1998]230ITR301(MP)
N.K. Jain, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has on an application by the applicant-Department made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), stated the case and referred the following questions said to be of law for the opinion of this court, arising out of its order dated March 20, 1990, passed in I. T.A. No. 375/Ind of 1985 relating to the assessment year 1979-80 ;'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was not restricted to Rs. 23,600 out of the entire addition of Rs. 32,707, and, as such, levy of penalty by the Income-tax Officer without previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was illegal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in view of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ436
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. The petitioner who happened to be first in the original valuation, has been brought down when the awards of respondent No. 5 were subjected to revaluation. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that by this revaluation a 'gold medal' to which he had become entitled to would not be given to him but would be awarded to respondent No. 5.2. The following contentions have been raised by the petitioner :(i) that, the revaluation was not done as per the rules and regulations dealing with this subject. For this, reliance is being placed on clause 22 of Ordinance 5. According to the petitioner, the answer-books were supposed to be sent to two examiners other than the one who initially valued them and both of them are supposed to be outside the University. It is submitted that ten answer-books valued by the same examiner and a copy of the memorandum of instructions for the guidance of examiners if prepared by the paper setter were also required to be sent to the tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ12
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Application for quashing the letter dated 30-3-1996 (Annexure P/12) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,51,713.14/- (rupees one lakh fiftyone thousand seven hundred and thirteen and fourteen paise) as electrical charges failing which it has been threatened that the electrical line of the petitioner shall be disconnected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents that till decision on the dispute raised by the petitioner, before the Electrical Inspector, no revised bill be sent by respondents to the petitioner.2. Facts giving rise to the present application, are that the petitioner is a small scale industrial unit and is a consumer of respondent. According to the petitioner on 17-11-1995, the premises of the petitioner was visited by respondent No. 3 and meter inspected. It is the stand of the petitioner that the aforesaid act of res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1005
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the accused/appellant for offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of R.I. for 7 years therefor imposed by Sessions Judge, Bhopal by judgment dated 21-10-1994 in S.T. No. 18 of 1993.2. The facts not in dispute in the case are that the accused/appellant Anand Kumar was married to deceased Ranjana, alias, Reetu on 14-2-1989 at Amrawati (Maharashtra). Acquitted co-accused Biharilal and Taradevi are the parents of appellant/Anand Kumar, while acquitted co-accused Akhil Kumar and his wife Renu are his brother and sister-in-law respectively. Taradevi (P.W. 7) is the mother, Santosh (P.W. 9) is the brother, Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P.W. 10) is the younger sister, Anil Kumar (P.W. 4) is the cousin (uncle's son) and Dinesh (P.W. 8) is the cousin (maternal aunt's) son of deceased Ranjana. It is also not disputed that at the time of marriage of the deceased Ranjana with the accused/appellant Anand ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ337
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the accused/appellant for offence punishable under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of R. I. for 7 years therefor imposed by Sessions Judge, Bhopal by judgment dated 21-10-1994 in S.T No. 18 of 1993.2. The facts not in dispute in the case are that the accused/appellant Anand Kumar was married to deceased Ranjana, alias, Reetu on 14-2-1989 at Amravati (Maharashtra). Acquitted co-accused Biharilal and Taradevi are the parents of appellants/Anand Kumar, while acquitted co-accused Akhil Kumar and his wife Renu are his brother and sister-in-laws respectively. Taradevi (P.W.7) is the mother, Santosh (P.W.9) is the brother, Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P.W.10) is the younger sister, Anil Kumar (P.W.4) is the cousin (uncle's son) and Dinesh (P.W.8) is the cousin (material aunt's) son of deceased Ranjana. It is also not disputed that at the time of marriage of the deceased Ranjana with the accused/appellant Anand Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1998]94CompCas612(MP); 1996(0)MPLJ728
A.S. Tripathi, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the orders dated August 9 of 1995 and August 17 of 1992, passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 5-B of 1987. By the impugned orders, the claim of the petitioner for settlement and payment of reduced amount on accounting was not accepted. Review of the order dated August 17, 1992, was also dismissed by the impugned order dated August 9, 1995.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had taken certain loan from respondent No. 1, Bank of India, some time in the year 1980. Later on, when certain amount was not paid, a suit was filed by respondent No. 1 bank for recovery of Rs. 92,96,629.35. The petitioner was running a Kaththa factory at Morena. The factory was pledged with the bank against the said loan. Respondent No. 1-bank had moved an application for attachment of the property and for appointment of a receiver. By the impugned order dated August 17, 1992, the trial court on the application made by respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ27
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. What would be the 'ordinary residence' of a three year old child-a male child in this case? Can a minor of this tender age exhibit his 'intention' to reside at a particular place or express a desire as to where he would like to reside. One way to look at this question would be to link his residence with the natural guardian. The minor in this case is not residing with father but with parents of the father. Mother has custody of a female child, she is seeking custody of her minor son. A petition has been preferred under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). An objection has been taken to the maintainability of the petition. It is pleaded that courts at Gwalior have no jurisdiction and the petition should be filed at Delhi where the minor is said to be staying with his grand parents. The trial Court found no merit in the objection so taken by the father and grand parents of the minor. Dissatisfied with the same, they h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997MP238
S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter the Code for short) against the judgment and decree dated 12-7-91, passed by the District Judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal No. 9-A/91, arising out of judgment and decree dated 6-4-89, passed by Second Civil Judge Class 1, Rewa in Civil Suit No. I06-A/88.2. The respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 106-A/88 against the appellants and respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 was proform a party. The respondent No. 2 filed his written statement admitting the claim of the respondent No. 1. Thus the suit is contested by the appellants against the respondent No. 1 on merits.3. The respondent No. 1 claimed in the plaint that he was the owner of Khasra No. 11/3, area 6.50 acres, situate in village Godha, Tehsit Sirmour, District Rewa. He pleaded that the aforesaid suit properly was the part of the property belonging to his ancestors and his real brothers who had obtained...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1998)DMC724
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In matrimonial proceedings between the parties for seeking divorce by the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed on 14.7.1995, on 9.2.1996Aan application was filed under joint signatures of the spouses through their Counsel for obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The spouses sought a decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Act on the date of presentation of the petition. The Matrimonial Court by order dated 12.2.1990, however, held that the decree sought of divorce on mutual consent cannot be passed before expiry of six months period from me date of joint filing of the petition. The Court held that the provision of Sub-section (2) of the Section 13B of the Act require the Court to direct the parties to wait for six months after filing of the petition based on mutual consent.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the wife raised two contentions. Firstly it is contended that the period...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ200
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In matrimonial proceedings between the parties for seeking divorce by the wife under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed on 14-7-1995, on 9-2-1996 an application was filed under joint signatures of the spouses through their counsel for obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The spouses sought a decree of divorce under section 13B of the Act on the date of presentation of the petition. The Matrimonial Court by order dated 12-2-1990, however, held that the decree sought of divorce on mutual consent cannot be passed before expiry of six months' period from the date of joint filing of the petition. The Court held that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13B of the Act require the Court to direct the parties to wait for six months after filing of the petition based on mutual consent.2. The learned counsel appearing for the wife raised two contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the p...
Tag this Judgment!