Madhya Pradesh Court August 2004 Judgments
Sukhsen and anr. Vs. Kamtaiya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT190; 2004(4)MPLJ294
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment of reversal by the Appellate Court. This appeal was admitted on 18-3-1991 on following substantial questions of law:--'Whether the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and in not accepting the case of defendants claiming title to the suit land on the basis of sale deed Ex. D-l and Ex. D-2 ?' 2. Facts in short of the case are, that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession on the ground that the suit land survey No. 258/1 area 0.91 of Village Bharola, Tehsil Bandhavgarh belongs to the plaintiffs who are the bhoomiswamis and in possession of the land. In July, 1976 defendants encroached over the western part of the land and damaged crops. Plaintiffs removed the encroachment of defendants from the land. But on 15-11-1977, the defendants forcibly reaped the crop from a part of the land which is shown by words (A),...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Chand and anr. Vs. Smt. Laxmi Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT81
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' for convenience) is directed against the order dated 20-2-2004 passed by R.C.A., Bina in Eviction Case No. 2-A/90 (7) 2003-2004.2. Landlord late Babulal was a physically handicapped person. The suit house in occupation of tenant/applicants was bonafide required by him for opening a general stores by his one of the unemployed son Manish. Therefore, he filed application dated 22-3-97 before R.C. A. seeking eviction of tenant/applicants under Section 23(A)(b) of the Act. During the pendency of proceedings landlord late Babulal died. He was survived by widow Smt. Laxmi Bai, Om Prakash, Shila, Anita, Manoj and Manish. Accordingly, non-applicants' names were substituted. Tenant/applicants resisted the application aforesaid seeking their eviction stating inter alia that the suit house is not bonafide required for opening a general stores by one of the son of landlord...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Saxena and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP14; 2005(1)MPHT321; 2004(4)MPLJ379
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J. 1. This batch of petitions involving identical facts and question of law is being decided by this common order. All the petitioners are holding office of Chairman/ President of District Co-operative Central Bank or District Land Development Bank or similar other societies, registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). In all the cases the respondent No. 1 has passed separate orders under Section 52(4) of the Act, by which the State Government has directed that a nominated member, in most of the cases the Collector of District, is nominated as Chairman of Society and to perform such duties in the Co-operative Society. The description/particulars of petitions, are shown hereunder in a table form so that the picture may be seen at a glance.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Writ Name of Chairman Date of Name of Bank Person nomina-Petition of Society/Petiti- Election...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC213(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this case shall also govern disposal of other two petitions being M.P. No. 1699 and W.P. No. 1700 because, all these cases arise out of common impugned order and secondly, they arise between the same parties.2. The challenge in this writ is to a revisional order, dated December 3, 2002 (annexure P-l), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, whereby the revision file.0d by the petitioner against an order of reassessment dated April 16, 1996 passed by an assessing officer (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax) for the period April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 has been dismissed which was originally assessed by order dated December 30, 1993 by the assessing officer.3. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the departments of petitioner No. 1--which is a Railway. The petitioner is running a Departmental Catering Services for the passengers. It is in the course of this activity the petitioner sells in open market 'coal ash'. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Reena and anr. Vs. Vallabh Das
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT375
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicants/accused have filed this petition for quashing the complaint Case No. 100/04 pending in the Court of JMFC, Harda in which cognizance was taken vide order dated 25-3-04 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of the IPC.2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily narrated as under:-On the report of applicant No. 1 Ku. Reena, Ganesh s/o complainant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354, IPC with regard to the incident alleged to have occurred on 24-2-2000. Thereafter respondent Vallabh Das filed a private complaint for offence punishable under Section 506, IPC against the applicants as well as Smt. Chandra Kanta, mother of applicant No. 1 and one Satendra Thakur in the Court of JMFC, Harda on 28-1-04, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 354/03. In this Criminal Case No. 354/03, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxmandas Nandlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)679
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this case shall also govern disposal of IT Ref. Nos. 30, 50 and 51 of 1999 because, all these income-tax references involve common question and secondly, they arise out of common order between the same parties. The only difference being that they arise out of the different assessment years.2. This is an application made by the Revenue (CIT) under Section 256(2) of the IT Act consequent upon the dismissal of their application made under Section 256(1) of the Act by the Tribunal in RA Nos. 110 to 112/Ind/1998, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal dt. 23rd April, 1998, in ITA Nos. 304 to 306/Ind/1994 pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1990-91. By impugned order, the learned Members of the Tribunal were of the view that the questions proposed by the Revenue do not involve any question of law which is capable of being referred to the High Court for its opinion. Accordingly, the reference application made by the Reven...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Shankar Lal Dwarka Das
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN173(MP)
ORDERSapre, J. The decision rendered in this case shall also govern disposal of other two cases being M.C.C. Nos. 252 and 254 of 1995 because all these applications relate to one assessee and secondly arise out of one impugned order passed by ITAT, on 9-9-1993. The only difference being that they arise out of different assessment years.2. This is the question which the revenue has proposed for being answered by this court on a reference being called from the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the assessing officer for concealment of Income?'3. The dispute in this case essentially relates to imposition of penalty which was imposed on assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Though, the penalty was imposed upon the assessee by the assessing officer, the same was quashed by the Tribunal holding that there was no deliberate...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Laxmandas Nandlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN353(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. The decision rendered in this case shall also govern disposal of I.T.R. Nos. 30,50 and 51 of 1999 because, all these Income Tax References involve common question and secondly, they arise out of common order between the same parties. The only difference being that they arise out of the different assessment years.2. This is an application made by the revenue CITunder section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act consequent upon the dismissal of their application made under section 256(1) of the Act by the Tribunal in R.A. Nos. 110 to 112/IND/98, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal dated 23-4-1998 in I.T,A. Nos. 304 to 306/ IND/94 pertaining to the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91. By impugned order, the learned Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were of the view that the questions proposed by the revenue do not involve any question of law which is capable of being referred to the High Court for its opinion. Accordingly, the reference appli...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Gulabchandra Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT139; 2004(4)MPLJ91
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellants/defendants have called in question the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1995 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 2-A/90.2. As per the appellants, on 5-2-1968 the respondent was appointed as their agent under Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations'). During the existence of his agency, on 21-3-1984 he submitted a proposal form to insure life of Prakash Chandra Agrawal. Alongwith the proposal form dated 21-3-1984 the respondent submitted his report about the proposer. In the said proposal form and report, the respondent suppressed the information regarding previous hospitalization of the proposer due to accident and also about his ailment. As per the appellants, before the proposal could be accepted, proposer Prakash Chandra Agrawal, died on 29-3-84 due to renal failure. For...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Rasool and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT285
ORDER1. In Income Tax Reference No. 44/99 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question for opinion of this Court:-'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,24,918/-incurred by the assessee for Inami Yojna Scheme following its own order for A.Y. 1989-90 ?' 2. In Income Tax Reference No. 46/99 this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 256(2) in ITR No. 156/97 has called for statement of case in respect of the following question :-'Whether the Tribunal was right in invoking the provisions of Section 37(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 6-B of I.T. Rule, 1962 to disallow the sale promotion expenses incurred by the assessee at Rs. 2,17,029/- holding them to be advertisement expenses ?' 3. It is relevant to state here that in both the references the assessee is the same. We will refer to the facts in I.T.R. No. 46/99. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »