Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(1)MPLJ246
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 10-1-2003 passed by the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur in Case No. 60/A-90 (7)/2000, directing thereby eviction of the revisionist.2. Admitted facts of the case are that the shop in question is comprised in a property which was purchased by applicant Smt. Gumana Bai vide registered sale deed dated 6th of February, 1989 and has been occupied by the non-appli-cant/Revisionist as a tenant.3. Smt. Gumana Bai as a landlady submitted an application under Section 23-A (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) for eviction of the revisionist on the ground that she needed the disputed shop for starting of business by Sajal and Prabhat who happen to be the grand sons of her brother-in-law. The disputed property is stated to have been purchased by her vide registered sale deed 6th of February, 1989. The shop in question has been in the occ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(1)MPHT31
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 29-3-2000 passed by the learned third Additional District Judge, Satna in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 48/99 whereby the learned appellate Judge passed the order of status quo in respect of immovable and movable properties belonging to the petitioner whereas the Court of first instance had passed an order of restraint restraining the petitioner from alienating the immovable property.2. The facts as have been portrayed are that the non-applicant as plaintiff initiated a civil action being C.S. No. 54-A/99 in the Court of 4th Civil Judge, Class II, Satna for partition and declaration that she is entitled to half share in the joint Hindu family property. Alongwith the suit the non-applicant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1980MP37
U.N. Bhachawat, J.1. The reference to this Bench arises out of the execution proceedings pending in the Court of the III Civil Judge, Class II, Chhindwara, in Execution Case No. 165-A of 1969, which was initiated on the application of the decree-holder-respondents for the execution of their money decree against the judgment-debtor-appellant. The reference has arisen in the following manner.2. An electric motor pump belonging to the judgment-debtor, which has been fitted in his well, situated in agricultural field for irrigating the field, and his cart have been attached on the application of the decree-holders-respondents by the said Executing Court. The judgment-debtor filed an objection to this attachment submitting that he was an agriculturist and the attached articles are the implements of husbandry which are necessary to enable him to carry on his agricultural operation and earn livelihood and as such the articles were exempted from attachment under proviso (b) to Sub-section (1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1987MPLJ358
T.N. Singh, J.1. This is plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of the mortgage evidenced by the Deed dated 21-2-1947. Learned District Judge, Morena, having dismissed the suit, the plaintiffs are in this Court.2. Needless to say that the plaintiffs based their claim on the mortgage-deed Ex. P/3 to enforce their right of redemption of the mortgage ensured under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, for short T.P. Act'. The plaintiffs claimed that as per terms of the mortgage they were prepared to repay the : entire loan of Rs. 15,000/- and had served notice on the defendant who did not respond. Because the defendant was illegally enjoying the usufruct of the property, they were obliged to institute the suit. The claim was opposed by the defendant mainly on the ground that the right of the plaintiffs to redeem the mortgage had been extinguished as a result of his purchase in Court-sale of the property mortgaged. Although in para 3 of his written statement, the mor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT264; 2005(3)MPLJ329
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The petitioners are employees of Ordnance Factory, Katni. They were posted as Examiners in the Electric Maintenance Section. They were paid incentive bonus as were paid to the maintenance workers. Subsequently, the respondents stopped payment of incentive bonus on the ground that they are not entitled for the same. The respondents also ordered recovery of the amount wrongly paid. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No. 635/2002 for quashing the order of recovery and for a direction to respondents to continue to pay the incentive bonus. The Tribunal by order dated 3-4-2003 dismissed the application on the ground that a claim relating to incentive bonus can not be said to be a dispute relating to 'service matter' and, therefore, it can not be the subject matter of a dispute before the Tribunal. The said order is challenged in this petition.2. Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]226ITR357(MP)
A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is an income-tax reference at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law for answer by this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed to make two separate assessments for the periods from January 1, 1981, to June 30, 1981, and July 1, 1981, to December 31, 1981 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the first trust executed on August 1, 1978, was validly extinguished on July 1, 1981 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the trust created on July 1, 1981, could not be said to be unlawful not to apply the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1985)45CTR(MP)126
ORDERU. N. Bhachawat, J. - This order shall dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Cases No. 108 of 1977 and 109 of 1977 also, an in all these cases a common question is involved and the parties are the same.2. These are the applications made by the department u/s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying that this court should require the ITAT to state the case and to refer the following question in the above respective cases for our answer :(i) M.C.C. No. 107/1977'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order the order of the AAC whereby he held the expenditure in respect of lease rent amount to Rs. 18,95,832 as wholly and exclusively, for the purpose of business and, accordingly, allowing the assessees claim ?'(ii) M.C.C. No. 108/1977'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the AAC whereby he held ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT387
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. By filing this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 10-7-2002 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Rewa in M.C.J. No. 9/99 by which application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant has been rejected.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal that the appellant purchased a Mini Truck on 17-1-1997 after requesting to his father to sell the land of his share and give him money in cash. His father gave him Rs. 1,10,472/- which was paid by him by demand draft dated 2-11-1997. On getting finance for the rest of the price the amount was paid to the Ashok Leyland Company. After the purchase of the said Truck the appellant discovered many manufacturing defects in it and as such he approached the respondents on several occasions to make the vehicle good but they did not pay any heed to it. The appellant filed a civil suit claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 6,38,100/-.3. In the said suit th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Writ Petition No.4517/2013 6.5.2013 Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 17.8.2012, Annexure P1, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, whereby it finally disposed of the petitioners Original Application No.654/2009 with the following direction. The official respondents in their reply have taken the plea that the case of the family pension will be decided after the decision of the Family Court of Allahabad. The divorce case pending before the Family Court, Allahabad has since been dismissed vide their order dated 25.4.2011 and now, as admitted in their reply, the office respondents have to decide the case of family pension. In these circumstances, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to decide the case of family pension and other terminal benefits and make payment regarding them within a period of 120 days from the date of issuing of this order to the applicant and/or res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982MP120
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This Is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st July 1979 passed by a learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 166 of 1976.2. The appellant N. C. Dass was married to the respondent Smt. Chin Mayee Dass according to the Hindu rites on 14th July 1959. The appellant on 17th July 1975 filed a petition under 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce in the Court of Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur on the ground that the respondent was living in adultery. The trial Court held that on the date of the petition the respondent was not living in adultery and on this ground the petition was dismissed on 26th April 1976. In the first appeal filed against the dismissal of the petition, the appellant contended before the learned single Judge that he should be given the benefit of Section 13, as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amend-ment) Act, 1'976 (Act No. 68 of 1976) which came into force on 27th May 1976. The appellant relied upon Section 39 of the Am...
Tag this Judgment!