Madhya Pradesh Court May 2001 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.
Smt. Hansa Devi Sahu Vs. Bachchalal Jaisinghani and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT116; 2002(1)MPLJ122
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-1997 by District Judge, Shahdol in Civil Suit No. 38-A/1993 whereby the application (Annexure A/5) under Order 6 Rule 17 & Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. by defendant No. 1/ non-applicant No. 2 herein, Jitendra Kumar, was allowed and he was permitted to file additional written statement.2. Facts leading to the present revision petition are : Undisputably, the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement allegedly entered into between him and deceased defendant Smt. Gyani Bai. The plaint is 'Annexure-A/2'. It was averred therein by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 that there was an oral agreement between him and deceased defendant Gyanibai, whereby the latter agreed to sell the suit-house to him. Subsequently, on 10-8-1993, the agreement as above was reduced into writing in which the present defendant/non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar also appended his signature, as attesting w...
Smt. Shyama Bai Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4088; 2001(3)MPLJ205
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act') and she has been sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. for allegedly possessing 50 grams of opium on 30-10-1987.2. Prosecution alleges that on 30-10-1987, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Mandla, received information from an informer that the accused was selling opium. On the basis of the said information, Sub-Inspector R.G. Chourasia (PW-3) went to the place along with other police personnel and the witnesses and asked witness Dubedas to purchase the opium worth Rs. 10/-. Currency note of Rs. 10/- was signed by Dubedas and Mahesh Kumar (PW-4) and an inquest Ex. P/5 was prepared. Dubedas went to purchase the opium for Rs. 10/- and handed over the currency note to the accused. Thereafter her house was searched and from the possession of accused 50 grams of opium and currency note of Rs. 10/- was recovered vide seizure m...
Jeevan Singh Verma Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT386; 2002(1)MPLJ347
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the father of the convict, Jitendra, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction commanding the respondents to release his son as per the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a period of one month.2. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner's son has been convicted of an offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/-.3. After serving the substantive sentence for a period of two years the petitioner applied for temporary release on the ground of his mother's illness under Section 31A of the Act but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Narsinghpur, on the ground that th...
Dr. Hukumchand Marothi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(MP)157; [2002]254ITR602(MP)
Arun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting an application filed by the appellant under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The appellant filed a return of income showing income from profession at Rs. 11,276 and interest income was shown at Rs. 14,538. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax assessed the income at Rs. 3,34,614. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appellant submitted that the Hindu undivided family had agricultural land and substantial income from it besides he claimed income from profession, N. S. C. and bank interest and that the family settlement documents in which the said agricultural land was received on partition. Before the appellate authority it has been submitted that the return was submitted in which a bank certificate was filed showing F. D. R. of Rs. 5,500 in the name of his married daughter, Smt. Mamta Mehta.3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe...
Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar Naik Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR639(MP)
Arun Mishra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant is a partnership firm, dealing in gold and silver ornaments and money-lending at Seoni. For the assessment year 1993-94 return was filed declaring the income as nil, as the payment of interest and salary to the partners was in excess of the profit-A revised return was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 1,32,506. The appellant had valued the excess closing stock of silver weighing 35.713 kgs. at Rs. 1,75,000. It was added as income in the aforesaid return. There was a survey in the business premises of the appellant on March 22, 1992, according to which excess stock of Rs. 1,71,000 was found which was surrendered by the firm and it was in these circumstances that a revised return was filed on March 3, 1994. The appellant claimed Rs. 72,000 payable to the partners of the firm which was allowed by order dated January 2, 1996, passed by the Income-tax Officer...
Shri Radhika Prakashan (Raipur) P. Limited, Bhopal Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT52
1. The appellant Shri Radhika Prakashan (Raipur) Pvt. Limited filed the return on income on 31-12-1990 declaring loss of Rs. 1,90,240/-. The assessing officer found certain purchases on 9-11-1989 of Rs. 25,000/-, on 22-11-1989 of Rs. 15,000/-, on 4-12-1989 of Rs. 18,000/-, on 11-12-1989 of Rs. 25,000/-, on 23-12-1989 of Rs. 15,000/- and on 25-12-1989 of Rs. 17,000/-. The assessing officer found that for said purchases the payments were made in cash of sum exceeding Rs, 10,000/- otherwise than by a cross cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft. The assessing officer disallowed these expenditure and added the total sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- to the disclosed income.2, Before the assessing officer it was submitted that the payments were made number of times in a day and as each transaction was below Rs. 10,000/-, the provision of Section 40A(3) was not attracted. However, this was accepted by the assessing officer. The appellant also submitted that the case was covered under Rule 6 D...
Kabra Drug Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT441
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed in this L.P.A. Shri P.M. Choudhary placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mangalbhai v. Dr. Radhyshyam AIR 1993 SC 806. By placing reliance on the ratio of this judgment, Shri Choudhary submitted that the learned Single Judge was in error in treating the writ petition filed by the appellant as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India instead of treating it in view of Article 226. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed : '[In our opinion] where the facts justify a party in filing an application either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, and the party chooses to file his application under both these Articles, in fairness and justice to such party and in order not to deprive him of the valuable right of appeal the court ought to treat the application as being made under Article 226.' (p. 808) The Supreme Court further held whi...
Shri Radhika Prakashan (Raipur) (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(MP)463
By the CourtThe appellant Shri Radhika Prakashan (Raipur) (P) Ltd. filed the return on income on 31-12-1990 declaring loss of Rs. 1,90,240. The assessing officer found certain purchases on 9-11-1989, of Rs. 25,000, on 22-11-1989 of Rs. 15,000, on 4-12-1989 of Rs. 18,000, on 11-12-1989 of Rs. 25,000, on 23-12-1989 of Rs. 15,000 and on 25-12-1989 of Rs. 17,000. The assessing officer found that for said purchases the payments were made in cash of sum exceeding Rs. 10,000 otherwise than by a cross cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft. The assessing officer disallowed these expenditure and added the total sum of Rs. 1,16,000 to the disclosed income.2. Before the assessing officer it was submitted that the payments were made number of times in a day and as each transaction was below Rs. 10,000, the provision of section 40A(3) was not attracted. However, this was not accepted by the assessing officer. The appellant also submitted that the case was covered under rule 6DD(j) of the...
Chandrasen JaIn Vs. Suresh Chand JaIn and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT486; 2001(3)MPLJ191
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 1-12-2000 in Civil Suit No. 286-A/99 by IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC of defendant/petitioner has been rejected.2. The plaintiffs/respondents field a suit for eviction against the petitioner/tenant. The suit is being resisted by the defendant/petitioner, who filed his written statement after seeking several adjournments in that regard. The plaintiffs/respondents in para 3 of the plaint (Annexure A-1) pleaded that the suit property was the ancestral property of plaintiffs, and initially Dwarka Prasad was inducted in the suit premises as tenant. It was further pleaded that after the death of original tenant Dwarka Prasad, the defendant/petitioner inherited the tenancy rights in the suit premises. It was also pleaded that in the family partition of plaintiffs, the suit property was allotted in the share of Choudhary Gulab Chand Jain. The plaintiff/re...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3444; 2001(2)MPHT379; 2001(3)MPLJ315
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under the proviso to Section 167(2) and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') for bail.2. Applicant Ganesh Prasad was arrested on 27-12-2000 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). According to the prosecution he was found in possession of fifteen kilograms of Ganja. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 28-12-2000 and on that date he was remanded to judicial custody. An application under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code was filed on 1-3-2001 before the Special Judge appointed under the Act. That application came up for consideration before the Judge at 1.15 P.M. On the same date the charge-sheet was filed at 1.25 P.M. Thus, the charge-sheet was filed on 63rd day from the date of remand. The application for bail was submitted on the same da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »