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.
Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP231; 2000(1)MPLJ209
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'the Act').2. Honourable the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court had made a scheme for appointment of arbitrators, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Sub-section(10) of Section 11 of the Act. By virtue of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid scheme, the request under Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (5) or Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act can be heard by the Chief Justice himself or a Judge designated by him by a general or special order. In view of a general order passed by Honourable the Chief Justice designating me for the purpose in this case, this request can be heard by me.3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the non-applicants regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or his designate to hear the application under Section 11 of the Act. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the non-applica...
Manorama Patel and ors. Vs. Subhash Khoobchand Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ99
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the accused persons against the order by which their application for dismissal of the complaint has been rejected.2. On 10-1-1995 respondent Subhash Soni filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. He sent this complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code ) for investigation. On receipt of the police report he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 294 and 506 Part I, Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioners.3. The contention of the petitioners is that the cognizance of the offences has been taken on the basis of complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code and therefore it was necessary for the Magistrate to examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath as required by Section 200 of the Code and then alone summons could be issued for the attendance of the accused if there was sufficient ground f...
Vinod Kumar Nema Vs. Parshwanath Digamber JaIn Mandir Trust
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ392
R.P. Gupta, J.1. This is Second Appeal against confirming judgment and decree dated 7-1-1999 of IInd Additional District Judge, Balaghat in Civil Appeal No. 54 A of 1998. The trial Court had ordered eviction of the appellant/tenant in favour of respondent/landlord. The landlord was found to be a public trust under the MP. Public Trusts Act, 1951. The appellant had allegedly taken a piece of land measuring 15 ft. x 15 ft. on a rent of Rs. 20/- per month from the landlord and built a KACCHA JHOPDA on it and started running furniture business. It had been agreed to vacate the land as and when required by the trust. The defendant even encroached on some adjoining land which was shown in the site plan filed with the plaint. The landlords needs it for their own purposes and for the purposes of the trust. So the suit for eviction was filed from the tenanted area as well as the encroached area.2. The defendant/appellant had denied the ownership of the trust and alleged to have taken the land o...
Smt. Manorama Patel and ors. Vs. Subhash Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3360
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the accused persons against the order by which their application for dismissal of the complaint has been rejected.2. On 10-1-1995 respondent-Subhash Soni filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. He sent this complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for investigation. On receipt of the police report he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 294 and 506, Part 1, I.P.C. and issued process against the petitioners3. The contention of the petitioners is that the cognizance of the offences has been taken on the basis of complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code and, therefore, it was necessary for the Magistrate to examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath as required by Section 200 of the Code and then alone summons could be issued for the attendance of the accused if there was sufficient ground for proceed...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mainabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC335; 2001ACJ1921
Shambhoo Singh, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 699 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 160 of 1994), 700 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 10 of 1997), 701 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 158 of 1994), 702 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 159 of 1994), 709 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 157 of 1994), C. Rev. Nos. 961 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 12 of 1997), 963 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 9 of 1997) and 965 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 11 of 1997) filed by the insurance company as they arise out of the same accident and common question of law and facts arise therein.2. Facts leading to these misc. appeals and civil revisions are that on 2.4.92 Asha, her husband Natwarlal, Vimla, Baby Pinki, Radheshyam, Kanhaiyalal, Bharatsingh and others were going from Neemuch to Mandsaur travelling in jeep No. MPM 1635. Near village Thadod, truck No. CPV 5577 belonging to non-applicant Sudha-bai, driven by non-applicant Ranveersingh and insured with the appellant came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R. Rathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR190(MP)
1. The assessee was president of Shree Synthetics Ltd., from August 1, 1970, to September 6, 1988. He, however, became an executive director of the company from September 7, 1988. It seems that he received gratuity and leave encashment and for that he claimed deduction of Rs. 93,780 under Clauses (10A) and (10AA) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. His claim was negatived by the Assessing Officer. On appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the assessee'S claim and directed the Assessing Officer to scrutinise the claim of deduction per law and allow the same in the computation of total income.2. The Revenue felt dissatisfied and took appeal, to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter found that the assessee had attained 58 years on September 6, 1988, entitling him to retiremental benefits and that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had correctly decided the matter. On the second issue, it found on the facts that deductio...
Modern Agrico Industries and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR414(MP)
Deepak Verma, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction dated April 17, 1995, passed by the XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1993, whereby the conviction of the petitioners under Section 276E read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, hereinafter the 'Act'), has been maintained and they have been imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 each with imprisonment till rising of the court.2. The respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 276E read with Section 278B of the Act against the petitioners along with one Rajeev Puri and partners on the ground that they had made the payment of loan to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000 to one Marvellous Fabricators, during the assessment year 1985-86 in cash, whereas, the same should have been made either by account payee cheque or by a demand draft. According to them this was in contravention of Section 269T of the Act.3. It is not in dispute th...
Mohammad Akil Khan Vs. M.P. Film Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1999
Reported in: AIR1999MP255; 2000(1)MPLJ54
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this appeal preferred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the non-applicant has called in question order dated 30-4-98 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No, 3/97 whereby he has come to hold that the provisions of the Act is not applicable but the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1996') is attracted, and hence, the question of making the award rule of the Court did not arise. It is to be noted here that though the Court observed as aforesaid proceeded to deal with the objections placed on the record.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the appellant had availed a loan from the M. P. Film Development Corporation. As disputes arose with regard to payment of loan, the respondent-Corporation referred the disputes to the sole Arbitrator of their own choice, namely, the Managing Director. The sole Arbitrator by notice date...
Chaudhary Kanhaiyalal Hukumchand and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR843(MP)
Deepak Verma, J. 1. This criminal revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated October 9, 1995, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, whereby the charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 276E read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, that the provisions of Section 276E of the Income-tax Act, for which charge has been framed against the petitioners, stands omitted from the statute book with effect from April 1, 1989. He further submitted that on account of this change in law, the learned single judge of this court has been pleased to quash the proceedings in a judgment reported in Harikishan v. Union of India : [1996]217ITR582(MP) .3. It has further been contended that, even in the said case, challan having been filed subsequent to the deletion of the aforesaid section, cognizance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›