Madhya Pradesh Court April 1998 Judgments
Munnibai Vs. Jagdish Rathore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC647
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Trial Court rejecting her application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking a direction to the husband/plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500 /-per month towards interim maintenance together with an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to meet the expenses of the proceedings liable to be incurred in the litigation, the defendant/wife has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order.2.1 have heard the learned Counsel for the defendant/wife-applicant as well as the, learned Counsel representing the plaintiff/husband-respondent, and have carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff/husband has filed a petition on 1.7.1997, under Section 13 of the Act, praying for a decree of divorce. Admittedly the plaintiff had been marrie...
Tag this Judgment!Munnibai W/O Jagdish Rathore Vs. Jagdish S/O Bhagirath Rathore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ339
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court rejecting her application filed Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking a direction to the husband/plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards interim maintenance together with an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to meet the expenses of the proceedings liable to be incurred in the litigation, the defendant/wife has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant/wife-applicant as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiff/husband-respondent, and have carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff/husband has filed a petition on 1-7-1997, Under Section 13 of the Act, praying for a decree of divorce. Admittedly the plaintiff had been m...
Tag this Judgment!Malik Singh Chawla Vs. Surendra Kumar Lakhers and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1998
Reported in: AIR1998MP312
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. By this petition under Order 47, Rule I, CPC, the petitioner seeks review of the order passed by this Court.2. Shri Jain has basically raised two submissions which are as under :--(a) That case of non-applicant, election petitioner, before the Court below was never that the applicant is not a 'Sikh Harijan', therefore, this Court was not justified in taking into account that aspect of the matter and erred in setting aside the election.(b) That under Section 20 Sub-section (2), an election petition, under the provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, ought to have been filed in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Khurai and its presentation in the Court of District Judge, Sagar was bad and petition itself was not maintainable.3. It does not appear from the judgment delivered by this Court that this objection was raised at the time of final hearing. The parties concentrated on one aspect of the matter. It was argued by both the sides that a particular notification ...
Tag this Judgment!Archna Vs. Ajay Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC23
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The appellant has directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.1996, rendered by IX Additional District Judge, Indore in Hindu Marriage Case No. 157/92, thereby allowing the petition of the respondent/ husband for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act').2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu customs and rites on 10.7.1989. The appellant and respondent, after their marriage lived together as husband and wife till 31st January, 1990. It is not disputed that from 31.1.1990, appellant/wife Archna was living separately at her parental home at Ujjain. The respondent-husband filed a petition against the appellant/wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion, for grant of decree of divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. The petition was contested o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhiliya by L.Rs. Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ1009
Shambhoo Singh, J.1. The heirs of the original claimant have filed this appeal against the award dated 1.8.1996 passed by the 1st M.A.C.T., Mhow, Indore, in Claim Case No. 407 of 1987 whereby Rs. 15,000 were awarded as compensation for the death of Bhima.2. The case of the claimant Bhiliya, who died during the pendency of the claim case, was that on 18.6.1987 at 8 a.m. the N.A. No. 2, Ashok Kumar drove truck No. MPF 838, which belonged to N.A. No. 1 and was insured with N.A. No. 3, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his brother Bhima as a result of which he died. The deceased Bhima was unmarried and was living with his brother Bhiliya, the original claimant, who died during the pendency of the claim case. The deceased was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs. 10 per day. The claimant Bhiliya, therefore, filed claim petition for award of compensation of Rs. 50,000.3. N.A. Nos. 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, remained absent and were proceeded ex part...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Laxminarayan Mehta Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ63
ORDERR.D. Shukla, J.1. The petition by way of P.I.L. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Law Officer in the Indore Development Authority.2. The I.D.A. has been constituted under the provisions of M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The conditions of service of employees of IDA arc governed by the Act and the rules made thereunder. The State Government has framed Rules M. P. Development Authority Service (Officer and Servant Recruitment) Rules, 1987 which has been published in extraordinary gazette of M. P. dated 1-4-1988.3. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 is an officer working in the Law College as Assistant Professor. The IDA has got post of Law Officer Grade I and Law Officer Grade II. The post of Law Officer Grade I is a post to be filled up 100% on promotion.4. It is then submitted that the mode of recruitment given as per Rule 4 is either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation in c...
Tag this Judgment!Madhuri Bai Vs. Minor Surendra Kumar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT602
ORDERV.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed as the petitioner-mother feels aggrieved by the order dated 10-2-98 in Cr. Revision No. 181/96, by 1st A.S.J. Raigarh, affirming the order dated 3-7-96 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saranggarh in Misc. Cr. Case No. 56/95, granting maintenance in favour of the minor sons of the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.2. The facts leading to the present petition are that the non-applicants-minor sons of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., through their grand-father as their guardian, claiming amount of maintenance against their mother- the present petitioner. The father of the non-applicants had died while in service as Helper in the M.P.E.B.. His wife- the present petitioner is admittedly receiving family pension after the death of her husband. The trial Court allowed the petition of minor sons-the non-applicants and granted maintenance of Rs. 200/- to each of them. The ord...
Tag this Judgment!District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Controlling Authority Unde ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1275MP; 1999(2)MPLJ139
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, has assailed the order dated April 30, 1994 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in case No. 28/94 whereby the said Authority held that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to the gratuity amounting to Rs. 66,450.2. The facts as have been uncurtained in the petition are that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to the establishment of the petitioner. As per Section 4 of the Act, an employee is entitled to the gratuity to the maximum limit of Rs. 50,000. Later on, an amendment was brought on the Statute Book on April 24, 1994 enhancing the maximum limit to Rs. 1 lakh. Keeping in view the aforesaid amendment the Apex Bank, namely, M.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, Bhopal issued a circular on April 13...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagdish Prasad Goyal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR95(MP)
1. Counsel heard.2. This application for reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed with the contention that the money has been recovered from one Sanjay Kumar on May 30, 1988, to the tune of Rs. 4,45,000 which he declared to be the money of the assessee. This was accepted by the assessee. He thereafter filed a return in July 1988, and declared the amount to be the income for the assessment year 1989-90. Thereafter, he modified the statement and declared this income for the assessment year 1987-88. However, the Income-tax Officer accepted the amount to be the income for the current year, i.e., for 1988-89 and the assessment year 1989-90.3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that since the money was found on a search and, therefore, the penalty was a must, the Tribunal had committed an error by setting aside the penalty. The money in fact was recovered from Sanjay Kumar who declared the money to be the income of the assessee which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Mohan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR484(MP); 1998(2)MPLJ261
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee assessed to income-tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has approached this court seeking relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, i.e., Union of India, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh-II, Jabalpur, and the Income-tax Officer, Headquarters (Administration), Income-tax Office, Jabalpur, for making refund of Rs. 58,326.01, together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum in accordance with the provisions of Section 244 of the Act to the petitioner.3. The case of the petitioner is that for the assessment year 1982-83, he filed his return in time on July 31, 1982, showing his taxable income as Rs. 1,17,468 and tax payable was shown at Rs. 58,326.01. The assessment was to be completed within the statutory period of two years as provided under Section 153(1)(a)(...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »