Madhya Pradesh Court October 1998 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.
Ramlal Chironjilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR470(MP)
B.A. Khan, J. 1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Tribunal at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, soliciting our opinion on the following stated question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in upholding the penalty for delay in furnishing the return ?'2. The deceptive formulation of the question notwithstanding, what we are in fact called upon to answer is whether service of notice on the assessee under Section 139(2) wipes off the default committed by him in filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. There are divergent views expressed by two Division Benches of this court in Addl CIT v. Rampratap Shankarlal : [1979]117ITR662(MP) and Ckunnilal and Bros. v. CIT : [1979]119ITR199(MP) on the issue and hence it becomes necessary to have a fresh look at the matter, if only to take sides with one or the other judgment. 3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are that th...
Yashwant Raj Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ379
ORDERS.K. Kulshreshtha, J.1. This writ petition and the Writ Petitions Nos. 5372/97, 5373/97, 5374/97, 5376/97, 5377/97 and 5379/97 have been filed against the common order dated 30th of October, 1995, passed by the Board of Revenue in Civil Revision Nos. 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 193, 194 and 195-2/92, by which the Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by the S.D.O. as affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner holding that the petitioners were 'Gond' and as such were entitled to maintain an application under the provisions of Sections 170A and 170B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), for violation of the provision of sub- section (6) of Section 165 thereof.2. The writ petitioner along with Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Bhoopat Raj Singh and Nar Hari Raj Singh (respondents 6, 7 and 8) are residents of village Tarapur, Tehsil and District Raigarh and claim to be agriculturists having acquired the lands from their ancestors. They filed ...
State of M.P. and anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar Agrawal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ97
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries have called in question the soundness of judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5151/96.2. In order to procure adequate quantity of rice for public distribution and for the purpose of securing the surplus rice available in the State for meeting requirement of the deficit in other States of the country, the State of M.P. in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and with prior concurrence of the Central Government promulgated 'the M.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Levy Order'). According to Clause 2(c) of the Levy Order 'Rice' means any variety of rice produced or manufactured by dehusking paddy in a rice mill worked by power; and includes rice equivalent of paddy held in stock. Under ...
Ram Prakash Indrasen Kohli Vs. Krishna Das Agrawal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ447
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant/appellant.2. Shri A. M. Naik, learned counsel representing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2/caveators has also been heard.3. Perused the record.4. The tenant/appellant, has in this second appeal challenged the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court dismissing his appeal holding the same to have been abated after rejecting the applications filed by the present appellant under Order XXII, Rule 4 and under Order XXII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code).5. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed seeking eviction of the tenant/appellant from the accommodation in dispute by three plaintiffs. On the plaint allegations, out of these three plaintiffs the landlords, so far as the accommodation in dispute was concerned were only the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3.6. The learned counsel for the tenant/appellant has not disputed the aforesaid fact.7. The trial Court had dec...
Shanti Devi Agrawal and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ615
ORDERA.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Single Judge holding that the question raised in the First Appeal is of an importance; therefore, it may be decided by the Division Bench, though the question of law has not been framed by the learned Single Judge. However, whenever question is referred to the Larger Bench, question of law should be framed and then it should be referred to the Larger Bench. Since the question of law was not framed by the learned Single Judge, we shall frame a proper question after narration of few necessary facts.2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. There is a house existing on plot No. 8/1 and 9 measuring 4000 sq.ft. The suit premises was rented out by the plaintiffs to the defendant-Bank on monthly rent of Rs. 4,537.50 paise. The suit premises was previously owned by Bhagwanji Amarsi Chatwani and thereafter, the suit premises were purchased by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the plaintiffs required the suit premises in o...
Shyamlal Agrawal and ors. Vs. Sardar Gurubachan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ288
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1-5-1993, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 111-A/91, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicants against the non-applicant under Section 13(6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act'). It is not in dispute that the non- applicant has not deposited the rent after he was served with notice of demand and, thereafter, with summons. As per Section 13(1) of 'the Act', he was required to deposit the arrears of rent within the one month of receipt of summons. He could also apply for extension of time for deposit of arrears of rent after expiry of one month and having obtained extension, he was required to deposit future rent of each succeeding month by every fifteenth day. The non-applicant did not take any step to deposit the rent and, therefore, the applicants filed an application for striking out the defence under Section 13(6...
Ramnath Kaushik Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ67
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This petition challenges the order Annexure-P/1 dated 29-8-1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, in Case No. 40-B/128-96-97 under the provisions of Section 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), by which the no confidence motion has been held to have been duly passed against the petitioner, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Semra as also the order Anncxure-P/2 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Appeal under Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 affirming the said order Annexure-P/1 and further seeks a declaration to the effect that the no confidence motion moved against the petitioner has failed. The petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Semra. A notice for moving a motion of no confidence, against the petitioner, was given to the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority therefore, fixed 10/5/1997, as the dale for the meeting, to con...
Madhusudan Yadav Vs. Kshetriya GramIn Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ578
ORDERS.K. Kulshreshtha, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-3-1997 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the respondent No. 1 as also the order dated 12-1-1998, passed in Appeal, by the Board of Directors (respondent No. 2) of the Kshetriya Gramin Bank.2. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad is constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, the Board of Directors of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad, in consultation with the Sponsor Bank, Central Bank of India, and the Reserve Bank of India and with previous sanction of the Central Government, have framed Regulations known as 'Kshetriya Gramin Bank Hoshangabad, Staff Service Regulations'. It is not disputed that the service of the petitioner, who was posted as Manager in the said Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Hoshangabad, is governed by the said Staff Service Regulations. According to the petitioner, the petitioner joined the said Bank as Branc...
Shaji Varghese Vs. Ujjwal Majumdar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ340
ORDERV.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the impugned order dated 23-12-1994 passed in M.J.C. No. 2 of 1991 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon.2. The appellant/petitioner filed a petition for claim under Section 166 of the Act on 15-9-1991 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident dated 1-9-1990. An application under Section 166(4) of the Act was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the petition for claim. However, the petition for condonation of delay and consequently the petition claiming compensation have been dismissed by the impugned order as barred by limitation.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 166(3) of the Act has been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 14-11-1994. It has been submitted that in view of the amendment now ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›