Madhya Pradesh Court April 1999 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.
Uma Prasad Vs. Smt. Padmawati and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ502
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff-appellant has called in question the propriety of the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Seoni in Civil Suit No. l-A/78 whereby he has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration, partition and separate possession.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in forma pauperis for declaration, partition and separate possession. The admitted facts of the case are that the deceased Ramrichhpal had four sons namely, Jagan Prasad, Motilal, Suraj Prasad and Harishchand. The Plaintiff is the only son and heir of his deceased father, Jagan Prasad. His uncle Suraj Prasad died as a widower and issueless. His another uncle Motilal expired sometime in the month of February-March, 1971. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters of Motilal. His last uncle Harischand died on 19-1-1974. The defendant No. 1 is the widow of late Harishchand. On 8-12-1974 th...
Ashok Coal Depot Vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ594
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'the Act') for appointment of an arbitrator by me as a person designated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, under the 'scheme for appointment of arbitrator or arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh, 1996'. It is not in dispute that the amount claimed by the applicant is more than Rs. 25 Lakhs and, therefore, I am authorised to deal with the matter.2. Shortly stated, the facts of this case are that the applicant entered into a work contract of transporting the coal as per Annexure A-l, the tender, dated 23-11-1993. The applicant entered into an agreement with the non- applicant, marked as Annexure A-2, dated 23-3-1994 after accepting the tender. That agreement contains Clause 36 which is an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause is widely worded and it provides for referring of disputes arising out of or relating to t...
Mohan Raikwar Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: II(2000)DMC45
ORDERK. Sharma, J.1. Arguments heard.Case Diary of Crime No. 117/99 registered at Police Station Seoni, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 II of the IPC, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, perused.2. The prayer shows that barring Section 506 II of the IPC, all other offences are bailable. It is unfortunate that for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 II of the IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused has to remain in jail, in absence of an order of bail, from 13.3.1999. The petitioner had moved this application for grant of bail as his application for release has been rejected by the learned trial Judge and, thereafter, the application was rejected by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge on 17.3.1999. The repeat prayer has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13.4.1999 simply on the ground that the earlier application was rejected on merits and there were no changed circumstances. ...
Mohan Raikwar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ663
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.Shri Narendra Nikhare learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the State.1. Arguments heard.2. Case Diary of Crime No. 117/99 registered at Police Station, Seoni, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 -II of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, perused.3. The prayer shows that barring Section 506, 11 of the Indian Penal Code, all other offences are bailable. It is unfortunate that for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 II of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused has to remain in jail, in absence of an order of bail, from 13-3-1999. The petitioner had moved this application for grant of bail as his application for release has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge and, thereafter, the application was rejected by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge on 17-3-1999. The repeat prayer has been rejected by the learned ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abhishek Cineco Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR839(MP)
B.A. Khan, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions, stated to be questions of law arising out of its order dated August 16, 1995 : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,48,819 received by the assessee as subsidy was receipt of capital nature (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had evidence before it to hold that there was no nexus between the receipts and business activities of the assessee so as to hold the amount as not a revenue receipt ?' 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of exhibition of films and runs a cinema. He is said to have received a sum of Rs. 4,48,819 in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90 as subsidy under the scheme framed by th...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammed Ayub and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1115
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. The insurer/ appellant feeling aggrieved by the award dated 7.11.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri in the proceedings under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act) has approached this court by means of this appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the same and the dismissal of the claim petition. The present appeal had been presented in this court on 13.2.95.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents.3. Taking into consideration the nature of the controversy involved in all these appeals, they had been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.4. The learned counsel representing the claimants-respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that this appeal had been presented much beyond the prescribed period of limitation without there being any application for seeking the condonation of delay in...
State Bank of Indore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR874(MP)
B.A. Khan, J. 1. The assessee has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to refer four questions stated therein to be questions of law for the opinion of this court. Learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Mahajan, however, pressed in service only question No. 1 and sought reference by the Tribunal on this question which reads as follows : '(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that issue of denial of refund under Section 141A of the Income-tax Act, could not be raised and the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed against the assessment order dated March 24, 1986 for the assessment year 1983-84 and dated March 27, 1983, for the assessment year 1984-85 had become final ?' 2. The facts leading to the filing of this application are that the assessee-bank filed a return of income on June 30, 1983, declaring income of Rs. 1,08,23,388 along with the application for re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tirupati Construction Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR833(MP)
B.A. Khan, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act for directing the Tribunal to refer the following questions, stated to be questions of law for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the material contained in the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order in M.A. Nos. 50 and 51/Ind of 1990 dated November 30, 1990, justifies recalling its earlier order in ITA Nos. 842 and 843 IInd of 1985 ; 691 and 692/Ind of 1987 and 833/Ind of 1985 dated September 4, 1990 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to review its order (iii) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 254(2) when there was no mistake apparent from the record (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order is apparently perverse ?' 2. It transpires that the assessee filed the return for the assessment years 19...
Orissa and Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ358MP; 2000(1)MPLJ26
Misra, J. 1. Correctness of the order passed in W.P. No. 2329/1995 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court allowing the prayer of the petitioner therein, is called in question by the respondent- appellant invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 10 of the Letters. Patent. 2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the respondent No. 3, the present appellant applied for permission to retrench 40 workmen with effect from July 15, 1995 by its application dated April 3, 1995 which was received in the office of the Labour Commissioner on April 28, 1995. The aforesaid application was processed and on May 12, 1995 it was found that the present appellant, respondent No. 3, in the writ petition, had not filed along with the application three copies, which were required under Rule 76-A (3) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Rules'). Thereafter, a note dated May. 12, 1995 was put up in which it was suggested that a date for hear...
Karumu S/O Bichhiaraw and anr. Vs. Rafel S/O Bichhiaraw and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ551
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-1-1990 by the District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/1985 by which the plaintiffs/respondents' suit for declaration of their title over the suit-land and permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering in their possession, thereon was decreed, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1985 in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1985 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Dharamjaigarh.2. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :-'Whether the Will is hit by the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955 as a Hindu cannot by a Will so dispose of his property as to defeat the legal right of his wife as held in AIR 1967 SC 16531'3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are : that the parties to these proceedings are brothers being sons of Bichhi Urao. Bichhi Urao had in all about...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »