Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ122
ORDERR.P. Gupta, J.1. A composite petition for leave for filing appeal against an order of acquittal dated 25-3-1995 passed in Session Trial No. 207/94 by Sessions Judge, Chhindwara under section 302, Indian Penal Code under Sub-section (3) of section 378, Criminal Procedure Code as well as the appeal there against was filed in this Court on 7-8-1995. As the matter was belated, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for brevity (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for condonation of delay duly accompanied by affidavit, was filed though subsequently.2. In the present case, question for consideration, as has cropped up, is whether section 5 of the Act would be attracted in cases of appeal against an order of acquittal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the New Code'). Section 378 of the New Code is as extracted :'378. Appeal in case of acquittal - (1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2) and su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964MP272; 1965MPLJ329
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Fazaldad s/o Sardarkhan challenges the validity of the order dated 4-4-1960 passed by the State Government under Sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act No. 21 of 1946.2. The petitioner claims to have been a resident of village Fabra in District Vidisha in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the last 40 years. He owns considerable immovable property there. The petitioner alleges that he had gone to Chak. Shekhu District Gujrat (Pakistan) in July, 1948 on a temporary visit in order to participate in a marriage and to bring back his children from there. For reasons beyond his control the petitioner had to stay in Pakistan till 22-10-1953. The permit system having been introduced in October, 1948 no one from Pakistan was allowed to come back to India without a permit. The petitioner, therefore, entered India on the strength of a Pakistan passport issued by the Government of Pak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ933
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This first appeal is by the plaintiff aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court (Court of Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Morena), whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 22,900/- was dismissed.2. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that defendant/Municipal Council, Jaura, by accepting two tenders dated 1-2-1974, and then by order of the Chief Municipal Officer, Jaura, contracted with the plaintiff to execute certain construction work. The agreement was entered into in respect of the two tenders but no agreement was entered into in relation to construction of seven roads, which was given to the plaintiff on 15-1-1975 for 6 roads, and on 22-1-1975 for one road. Part payments were made from running bills, but when after completion of works, the full payments were not made, the plaintiff after correspondence issued notices, the last of which is dated 14-11-1977. After receipt of the notice a cheque of final payment was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2007]290ITR260(MP); 2006(3)MPLJ131
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') filed by the CIT against the order dt. 7th June, 2000 of the Tribunal.2. The facts briefly are that the respondent left India in 1968 and was employed in Muscat and Dubai till the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1992-93 and thereafter returned to India. A search was carried out under Section 132 of the Act in the premises of the respondent at Bhopal for a period of 13 days from 18th Oct., 1996 to 30th Oct., 1996. Thereafter, an assessment was made under Section 158BC read with Section 143(3) of the Act by the AO on 29th Oct., 1997 determining the total undisclosed income for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 18th Oct., 1996 at Rs. 2,10,48,043. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (for short, the Tribunal) and by order dt. 7th June, 2000, the Tribunal deleted some of the additions made by the AO to the undisclos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1987]166ITR534(MP)
C.P. Sen, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted for resolving the conflict in two sets of opinion by different High Courts regarding the application of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act in respect of payment of interest to the partner of a firm as a non-allowable or allowable deduction. In fact, there are two conflicting decisions of this court in Jalamchand Mangilal v. CIT : [1982]138ITR343(MP) and 347 and in Balchand Hashmatrai & Co. v. CIT : [1986]161ITR121(MP) which have been noticed by this court in Sobhagmal Phoolchand v. CIT (infra p. 541) and the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. One view is that irrespective of the capacity in which a person joins a partnership firm and is paid interest by the firm, Section 40(b) is a bar to payment of interest to the partner of the firm as an allowable deduction, while the other view is that when the interest is paid to a partner in a somewhat different capacity, the amount has to be deducted as an allowable deduction.2. Brief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ961
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This first appeal presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ECode') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1988 rendered by Vlth Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge. Indore in COS No. 89-A/86 thereby passing the decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (for short the 'Act') together with mesne profits @Rs. 115/- per months.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit-house No. 30, Bada Sarafa, Indore originally belonged to the Joint Family of deceased Tejpal and deceased Guljarilal. On partition by a registered partition deed dated 25-2-1953, this suit house fell to the share of Guljarilal. The respondents are the sons of late Guljarilal and the appellant is the son of Tejpal. The respondents came with a case that the appellant occupied the first-floor and one room on the ground-floor as the licensee of the respondents. This licence was terminated by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971MP5; 1970MPLJ1
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act), from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore. 2. On April 26, 1963, at about 4 p. m., Rajendra Kumar, a boy of 7 years, was sitting on the pathway a few yards away from the highway, on the outskirts of village Jamli, where he lived with his father, Parasram (respondent No. 1). The boy was answering the call of nature. In the meantime, a passenger bus, M. P. E. 3564, belonging to Mangilal (appellant) and driven by Kale Khan (respondent No. 2) came on the wrong side of the road and ran over the boy causing severe injuries to him, which resulted in his instantaneous death. 3. Parasram lodged a claim for Rupees 20,000/- before the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Act against Mangilal, Kale Khan and the Indian Merchantile Insurance Co. Ltd., (respondent No. 3, hereinafter called the insurer) on the allegation that the bus was driven at a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1979MP70; 1979MPLJ184
C.P. Sen, J.1. The case has come up before the Full Bench for confirmation of the decree nisi for dissolution of marriage granted by the DistrictJudge under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.2. The parties in this proceeding areChristians. The petitioner's case is that he is employed as Director-cum-Psychologist in the Educational and Vocational Guidance Centre run by E.L. Church at Chhindwara. The respondent No. 1 Lavina Lazarus was married to the petitioner according to the Christian rites at Indore in Dec. 1971. After the marriage the respondent No. 1 lived with the petitioner and his family members at Chhindwara for a few days, Thereafter at the instigation of the parents of the respondent No. 1 she started demanding that the petitioner should break relations with his family members and reside separately with her. When the petitioner did not agree with this, she reacted violently and held out the threat that either she would commit suicide or poison the petitioner and his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965MP170
Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 390, 391, 392, 393 and 394 all of 1962. 2. By these six petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Rustomji Jail of Mhow, challenges the validity of notices under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), served on him in respect of escaped income for the years ending on 31st March 1941, 31st March 1942, 31st March 1943, 31st March 1944, 31st March 1945, and 31st March 1946. He prays for the issue of writs for quashing these notices and for a writ of mandamus restraining the opponent in each case from taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance of the notices. 3. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner is a resident of Mhow, which was formerly a yart of the quondam Holkar State. In or about 1934 he began interesting himself in business activities in the then British India and acquired a textile mill, known as the new Premier Mill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(1)MPHT249
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 25-11-99 passed in Civil Suit No. 47-A/95 by the learned First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara.2. The facts as have been undraped are that the non- applicant filed the aforesaid suit for Specific Performance of Contract averring that the defendant had executed an agreement dated 8-10-94 for sale of a house for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in pursuance of the terms of the agreement had taken Rs. 60,000/- . It is further set-forth in the plaint that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the defendant was required to execute the sale-deed by 31-10-95 and the registration fee was to be borne by the plaintiff and the possession was to be handed over at the time of sale. Though in the month of April, 1995 the plaintiff approached ...
Tag this Judgment!