Madhya Pradesh Court October 1998 Judgments
Prabhudayal Amichand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR483(MP)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee and the following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order dated December 14, 1981, passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was not barred by the period of limitation prescribed under the Income-tax Act ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to levy the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the firm in its return for the assessment year 1972-73 claimed deduction of Rs. 1,36,000 representing interest credited to the account of Prabhudayal Surajbhan of Indore. It is an admi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Naresh Purohit Vs. Dr. P.K. Shobhana
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: AIR1999MP108; 1999(1)MPLJ714
J.G. Chitare, J. 1. Shri B.I. Mehta submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in not accepting the evidence of the petitioner which has been totally unchallenged. He further pointed-out that the respondent even did not bother to challenge the averments made by the appellant in the matrimonial petition. He submitted that the reasons given by the trial Judge for dismissing the petition of the appellant praying for decree of divorce are not consistent with the evidence on record and they are erroneous. He further submitted that on account of wrong approach, the learned Judge landed in the error of dismissing the petition of the appellant for getting divorce against the respondent -- Shobhana. For substantiating his contention Shri Mehta placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in, 1994 SCC 337 (AIR 1994 SC 710) (V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) By placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra) he submitted that present one is aca...
Tag this Judgment!Balram Varma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ324MP
ORDERSrivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated July 31, 1998, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, dismissing his application challenging the order imposing upon him the punishment of compulsory retirement in the proceedings under the Central CCS (CCA) Rules, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the impugned orders and his reinstatement in service with retrospective effect with all the monetary and consequential benefits. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 3. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. At the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Senior Accountant in the establishment of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh. The officer next above the petitioner was the Section officer-in-charge of the section where the applicant/petitioner worked and the officer nex...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Devi Shrivastava Vs. Anil Kumar Zutsi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ82
ORDERTej Shankar, J.1. This petition in revision has been moved by the petitioner against the order dated 4-9-1998 passed by Shri R. P. Sudele, Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior.2. It raises a short question. It appears that respondent No. 1 Anil Kumar Zutsi filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 with the allegation that a part of the house No. 916 situate at Morar, Gwalior, was in the tenancy of the defendants i.e. the husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants 2 to 3. After his death, the defendants became the tenants. There was a mutual family partition, under which the portion with tenancy of defendants and the portion over it went to the original petitioner, i.e. respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he was in service in Air Force and was posted at Pune. He was to retire in November 1997 and after his retirement, his family was to settle in the said house which is in the occupation of the defendants. He required the accommodatio...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Rao Mukut Rao Survey Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ105
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged initiation of criminal proceedings against him.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the alleged offence dated 31-3-1978 the petitioner is being prosecuted, under Sections 409 and 467, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 30-1-1988. Report was lodged against him on the basis of information on 27-11-1987. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no judicial proceedings can be instituted against a Government servant if not instituted while he was in service, before his retirement. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 9(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Rules') and submitted that under this rule, proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner.3. The application of the petitioner for drop...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Ram Avtar Gupta Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ512
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. The accused/appellant stands convicted under Section 20(b)(i) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and sentenced to suffer R.I. For five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of which, he has further to undergo R.I. for 3 months, by judgment dated 18-2-1998 in Special Cr. Case No. 192 of 1997 by Special Judge, (NDPS), Raipur.2. Prosecution case, stated in brief, is that on 26-4-1997, S.H.O., D. S. Bais (P.W.5), P. S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, received an information that a person wearing brown pant and black-striped shirt, standing at the private bus stand, Bilaspur, was having Ganja in his possession. S.H.O., D. S. Bais (P.W.5) prepared Panchnama (Ex.P/1) regarding the said information and then went to the Bus Stand. He found the accused/appellant standing there wearing the dress as per the above information received by him. He inquired from the accused/appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Amritrao Mukutrao Survey Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ595
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged initiation of criminal proceedings against him.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the alleged offence dated 31-3-1978 the petitioner is being prosecuted, under Sections 409 and 467, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 30-1-1988. Report was lodged against him on the basis of information on 27-11-1987. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no judicial proceedings can be instituted against a Government servant if not instituted while he was in service, before his retirement. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 9(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Rules') and submitted that under this rule, proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner.3. The application of the petitioner for drop...
Tag this Judgment!Shivlal S/O Bhuwanji and ors. Vs. Girishkumar Kailash Narayan Gupta an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ519
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Kutumbale submitted that the learned tribunal did not peruse the FIR which mentions the name of deceased and the number of the truck involved in the said accident. He further pointed-out that insurance cover note which is on record also mentions that the said truck was insured with respondent No. 3 on the date and time of the said accident. He submitted that in spite of this, the tribunal did not award interim compensation to the appellants in view of the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Shri Dandwate, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the tribunal was right in rejecting the prayer of appellants for interim compensation because the driver and the owner of the said truck have denied the liability.3. I do not find any substance in the submission of Shri Dandwate, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is the provision studded in benevolent legal provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. W...
Tag this Judgment!Anoop Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2938
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. The accused/appellant stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, for offence under Section 304B of I.P.C. while he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code; by judgment dated 23-2-1998, in Sessions Trial No. 271/90, by Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jabalpur.2. Undisputably the deceased Deepa Rai was married to the accused/appellant Anoop Kumar on 26-2-88 at Bareli (U.P.). She committed suicide by hanging herself on 5-7-1989 at Jabalpur. Complainant Gopendu Kumar Biswas (P.W. 7) and Dugendu Kumar Bishwas (P.W. 8) are...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushal Prasad Kashyap Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ455
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner has been suspended from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Salkhan in Tahsil Janjgir, district Bilaspur under Section 39(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act'), by impugned order dated 6-2-1998 (Annexure. P. 1).2. The order of suspension requires confirmation by the State Government under Section 39(2) of the Act and the said suspension has been confirmed by order passed by the Additional Collector dated 18-5-1998 (Annexure. P.2). The main ground urged in assailing the order of suspension by the learned counsel Shri Prashant Singh for the petitioner is that in accordance with Section 39(2) of the Act the power of confirmation has not been exercised by the State Government. The State Government in exercise of powers of delegation under Section 93 of the Act has delegated the said power of confirmation to the Collector by notification published in M.P. Raj Patra dt. 2-2-1998. The contenti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »