Madhya Pradesh Court November 1998 Judgments
Vimal Kumar Vs. Gyanchand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: AIR1999MP264
C.K. Prasad, J. 1. This is second appeal by defendant No. 2 against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit for specific performance of contract, perpetual injunction and in the alternative, for recovery of possession. Civil Judge, Class II, Waraseoni, by judgment and decree dated 9-3-1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 119-A of 1983, decreed the suit. Defendant No. 2, aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal and the Second Additional District Judge, Balaghat, by his judgment and decree dated 13-4-1998, passed in Civil Appeal No. 44-A of 1987, dismissed the appeal. Defendant No. 2 being aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal and by order dated 29-10-1988, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :--1. Whether the finding recorded by the Courts below is based on misreading of evidence and hence perverse? 2. Whether there is neither any pleading norany evidence to the effect that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to p...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Kumar Tarachand JaIn Vs. Gyanchand Kunjilal JaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ500
C.K. Prasad, J.1. This is second appeal by defendant No. 2 against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit for specific performance of contract, perpetual injunction and in the alternative, for recovery of possession. Civil Judge, Class II, Waraseoni', by judgment and decree dated 9-3-1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 119-A of 1983, decreed the suit. Defendant No. 2, aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the Second Additional District Judge, Balaghat, by his judgment and decree dated 13-4- 1998, passed in Civil Appeal No. 44-A of 1987, dismissed the appeal. Defendant No. 2 being aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal and by order dated 29-10-1988, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-1. Whether the finding recorded by the Courts below is based on misreading of evidence and hence perverse?2. Whether there is neither any pleading nor any evidence to the effect that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pe...
Tag this Judgment!Gyanoda Wd/O Kalashashi Biswas and ors. Vs. Kalipada S/O Anand Biswas ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ42
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendants-petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorart for quashment of the order dated 15-2- 1985 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh.2. The facts which are essential for disposal of the present writ petition are that the non-applicants respondents filed civil suit No. 13-A/67 for possession of the land situate in Kh. No. 340 and 350 in Village Baisi Colony, measuring 7 acres. In the said suit Kalashashi Biswas, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 and a relative of other petitioners, was arrayed as the sole defendant. The said suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 20-7-1972 and possession was directed to be given to the plaintiff.3. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and decree Kalashashi Biswas, the defendant therein, preferred an appea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Labhsingh and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: [2001]112TAXMAN92(MP)
ORDERKhan, J.The revenue has filed this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for requiring Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions, said to be questions of law, arising out of the Tribunal order dated 21-11-1997.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding for relief allowed to the assessee by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not unjustified in law for want of evidence in support of the same as per the material on record and in absence of any adjudication regarding the capital and funds available with the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 for which the issue was pending with the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Tribunal's own order for the said year ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 lakh made by the assessing officer as unexplained investment holding ava...
Tag this Judgment!Manorama Devi Wd/O Parmanand and ors. Vs. Suresh S/O Kailash NaraIn an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ436
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant-appellants.2. Perused the record.3. Feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the first appellate Court dated 20-4-1998, dismissing their appeal and confirming the decree of the trial Court for their eviction from the accommodation in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, the tenant-appellants have now approached this Court in second appeal seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned decree.4. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed by Kailash Narain and Padamchand Jain against Paramanand on 18-11-1981. During the pendency of the suit, both the plaintiffs as well as the defendant expired and their heirs and legal representatives were brought on the record.5. The suit had been filed seeking a decree for eviction on the grounds envisaged under Section 12(l)(a), (c) and (o) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).6....
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Alka Mishra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ918
R.S. Garg, J.1. Parties are heard finally.2. The non-claimant/applicant insurance company being aggrieved by the rejection of their application filed under Order 26, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code has filed this revision petition. Submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that on certain investigations it was found that the licence on which reliance was placed was forged and fake document, therefore, the licensing authority of Uttar Pradesh was required to be examined. It was also claimed that the investigator H.P. Singh, resident of Kanpur, made certain investigations, therefore, he is also required to be examined in the matter. It was submitted before the lower court that as the licensing authority and the investigator are not residing in the jurisdiction of the trial court, therefore, commission be issued for their examination. The trial court by the impugned order rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant insurance company has filed this ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Selar Vs. Badrilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ478
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel, Shri Vilas Tikhe, who has put in appearance in this case representing the landlord/respondents.2. Perused the record.3. Feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereunder upholding the decree of eviction passed against the tenant- defendant-appellant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future, his appeal has been dismissed, he has now approached this Court in Second Appeal seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned decree.4. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed on 7-1-1992 on the assertions that the accommodation in dispute had been let out to the defendant on a rental of Rs. 30/- per month and the defendant having not paid the rent due for the month of June 1990 and onwards was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 and si...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Ganga Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ733
Rajeev Gupta, J.1. 'Undue Haste', on the part of the trial Court, in closing the trial and in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, is ex-facie apparent from the order-sheets of the trial Court, and the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4-6-1988 within 5 days of the filing of the chargesheet, against the accused on 30-5-1988.2. The incident, in question, took place on 14-4-1988. The charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed on 30-5-1988, and the charges against them for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 435/34 Indian Penal Code were framed the same day. The case then was fixed for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 4-6-1988. Though there was no representation on behalf of the prosecution/State on 4-6-1988, but as one prosecution witness Samar Bahadur appeared himself, the trial Court, after recording his evidence, closed the prosecution case and passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyudeep S/O Chhidamilal Sukhad Vs. Smt. Subhadrabai W/O Chhidamilal ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ403
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is the First Appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 8th November, 1994, passed by IVth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 7A of 1991.2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff Smt. Subhadra Bai filed the present suit against the defendant Smt. Vidya Devi, wife of deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad, her son Vidyudeep, State of M.P. and the Superintendent of Police, Sagar praying that the succession certificate granted in favour of defendants Smt. Vidya Devi and her son Vidyudeep in the Civil Suit No. 33 of 1989 judgment dated 22nd January, 1990 may be declared as null and void as the plaintiff is the lawfully wedded wife of deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad and she is entitled to all post retiral benefits, i.e. the sum of Rs. 10,000-00 of widow fund, G.I.F. in the sum of Rs. 50,000-00, gratuity in the sum of Rs. 37,760-00, leave encashment amount of Rs. 5,496-00, ex-gratia amount in the sum of Rs. 14,300-00 and...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Gyan Kaur and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ100
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act') against the order dated 23.11.1996, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Case No. 5 of 1991 under the Act.2. This appeal is being heard and disposed of finally with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.3. The undisputed facts of this case are that the deceased Kuldeep Singh was an employee of the appellant. He died on 17.11.1990. It was alleged by respondent No. 1 in her application for compensation that she was mother of Kuldeep Singh. He was on duty between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. on 17.11.1990. It was alleged that he died in the factory premises on account of certain head injuries. The respondent No. 1 claimed that she was dependent upon the deceased Kuldeep Singh. He was drawing Rs. 2,042 (Rupees two thousand forty-two) per month. At the time of his death, he was aged about 34 years. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 claimed Rs. 79,760 (Rupe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »