Madhya Pradesh Court September 2004 Judgments
Narendra Birthre Vs. Hariballabh Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT524; 2004(4)MPLJ437
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who was an official candidate of the Bhartiya Janata Party in the Assembly Election held in December, 2003 for constituency No. 23, Pohri, District Shivpuri, challenging the election of the respondent, who was official candidate of Rashtriya Samanata Dal, on the ground that the nomination of Hariballabh s/o Ramhit and Shambhu Dayal s/o Vishnu Prasad are wrongly rejected.2. After issuing notice of this petition the respondent filed his written statement wherein some preliminary objections were raised about the maintainability of the election petition. On the basis of preliminary objection this Court has framed following issues and these issues were heard as preliminary issues which are as follows:--(1) Whether the Returning Officer, Hariballabh s/o Ramhit & Sambhudayal are necessary and proper parties to the petition ?(2) Whether the election petition suffers from defect of nonjoinder of necessary parties ?(3) Whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chainmal Vs. Rani Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT319; 2004(4)MPLJ354
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by tenant under Section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') against the order of his eviction from the tenanted premises.2. The respondent who is a widow, under special category of landlord as defined under Section 23-A of the Act, submitted an application of eviction of petitioner from the suit premises in which he is carrying on the business of shoe material. In the application, it has been contended that the suit accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of starting eye-clinic of her major son, namely, Dr. K.L. Kakkad who is a medical practitioner and there is no other vacant suitable alternative non-residential accommodation of her own is available in the township of Jabalpur.3. The application was resisted by the petitioner and after obtaining leave to defend, he filed written statement. In the written statement, he denied that respondent is a widow and the...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Shantilal Chhajed
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN398(MP)
ORDERThis is a reference made at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Tribunal to answer the following question of law for opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim 40% expenses out of the amount received by him by way of incentive bonus or commission?'2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for petitioner. Despite repeated summons sent to the assessee, he has not chosen to either accept the summons or receive the summons. Under these circumstances, we have no option but to proceed to answer the reference made to this court by the Tribunal.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue and having perused the record of the case including the statement of the case drawn by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the question involved in this case and as referred to by the Tribunal to this court referred (supra) stands already answered by...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dhudo Bai Vs. Bajirao and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT235; 2004(4)MPLJ364
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20-8-1990 passed by First Appellate Court dismissing his suit.2. No exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to state that a suit for possession was filed in respect to certain agricultural land which is the subject-matter of the suit. The suit was filed simplicitor for possession. According to the plaintiff, she is the Bhumiswami of land in question and was illegally dispossessed by the defendant. Hence she filed suit for possession.3. The averments made in the plaint were denied by the defendant in the written statement. The Trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence decreed the suit of plaintiff.4. An appeal was preferred by the defendant before the First Appellate Court which has been allowed and the suit has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. According to First Appellate C...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Koushalya Bai and Two ors. Vs. Radha and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT47; 2004(4)MPLJ317
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court reversing judgment of Trial Court and decreeing the suit of plaintiffs, the defendants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100, CPC.2. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction in regard to certain agricultural land which is the subject-matter of the suit.3. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that he entered into an agreement with the owner of suit land Surajbali on 27-12-1953 and thereafter on paying Rs. 300/- towards consideration, obtained possession of the disputed land. A document in that regard was also executed by Surajbali in favour of plaintiff. Since the document was not registered, therefore the status of plaintiff became as of a trespasser, but, according to him, by adverse possession, he had acquired Bhumiswami right on the suit land. Since defendants gave threat to dispossess the plaintiff, hence present suit for declar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thakur Das Aidasani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)315; [2005]274ITR605(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. This is a reference made at the instance of Revenue (CIT) under s. 256(2) of the IT Act to this Court for answering following two questions of law which arise out of an order dt. 28th Feb., 1992, passed in ITA Nos. 624 to 627/Ind/1990 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act was illegal? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the returns filed by the assessee were under Amnesty Scheme ?" 2. The assessee was assessed for the years 1978-79 to 1981-82. On 21st/22nd Jan., 1986, a search operation as contemplated under s. 132 of the Act, as it had its application in the year 1986, was carried out by income-tax sleuths in the business and residential premises of assessee. It is in this search operation, one diary was seized by the taxing authorities. This diary contained several information...
Tag this Judgment!Shashikant Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT245; 2004(4)MPLJ498
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9-8-2004 passed by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 125/2004 thereby rejecting the contention of the applicant that he is below 18 years of age and can not be tried by the Sessions Judge under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act.2. The applicant was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Police submitted a charge-sheet before the Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The contention of the applicant was that his dale of birth is 1-4-86 and on the date of arrest, i.e., the date on which he was first produced before the Court, he had not completed 18 years and as such, he is a juvenile and thus, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as he is aged 17 years, 11 months and 23 days. The learned Trial Court examined three witnesses and after hearing the Counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Maheshwari Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(MP)293; [2007]289ITR324(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 23rd April, 1999, passed by Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 61/Ind/1996.2. At the outset it may be stated that this appeal was entertained by this Court on 8th March, 2000 by passing following order:'8th March, 2000Shri H.C. Sarda, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Admit.Issue notice to other side on payment of P.F. within a week.R.D. Vyas, J. Shambhoo Singh J.'3. Under Section 260A of the Act, the appeal can be admitted for final hearing only when it involves any substantial question of law. Sub-section (3) then obliges the High Court to formulate substantial question of law which, in the opinion of High Court, is involved. Sub-section (4) then empowers the High Court to hear and decide the appeal only on the question so formulated. Proviso to Sub-section (4) enables the High Court to decide the appeal, on reasons to be recorded, on that question not initially...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Vippy Solvex Products Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN492(MP)
ORDERSapre, J.This is an application made by revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act consequent upon the dismissal of their application by order dated 29-8-1997 by Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act in R.A. No. 55/Ind./97 which in turn arises out of an order dated 17-3-1997, passed by Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 354/Ind./92. By this application, the applicant, i.e., revenue prays for calling the following questions of law said to arise out of the order dated 17-3-1997, passed by Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 354/Ind./92 to this court for being answered on merits under section 256(1). Since, in the opinion of Tribunal, the questions proposed are findings of fact and hence, the Tribunal declined to make the reference to this court.2. Following two questions are proposed as questions of law and which according to revenue arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal :'1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in ...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Proteins Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)37
ORDERAM. Sapre, J.This is an application made by assessee under 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 by order dated 27-1-1997, passed in RA Nos. 114/115/Ind/1998 which in turn arises out of an order dated 14-5-1998, passed in ITA Nos, 514/Ind/1992 and 924/Ind/1994 by the Tribunal. In the opinion of Tribunal, since the questions proposed are essentially based on questions of facts and are in fact questions of fact involving no legal issue as such which may attract the jurisdiction of High Court to answer the same on merits under section 256(1) ibid and hence, the Tribunal declined to make the reference to this court. It is then the assessee has come up under section 256(2) of the Act by making this application asking this court to call for reference to answer following questions of law :'(01) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »