Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(MP)462; [2007]290ITR453(MP)
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This reference is made by the Tribunal. Jabalpur Bench, by Statement of Case dt. 5th May, 1999 (in RA No. 107, 105 and 111/Jab/1998) in respect of its common order dt. 28th May, 1998 in ITA Nos. 282/Jab/1994, 263/Jab/1994 and 376/Jab/1995 regarding the asst. yrs. 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. The four questions of law referred are :Common questions for all three years'(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of deposit against tenancy, the assesses was only required to prove the identity of the depositors and that the deposit was made by the tenants ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had discharged the burden in respect of deposits of Rs. 2,70,000, Rs. 1,05,000 and Rs. 85,000 received from tenants during accounting year relevant to asst. yrs. 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 ?'Note : In the second question, the Tribunal had wrongly mentioned the asst. yrs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ250
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Bhagwandas Rathi sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident in 1987. His heirs filed a claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 18,69,600/- as compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle. The owner and the insurer filed separate objections. The Tribunal held that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which was insured. The Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 2.5 lacs and directed the insurer to pay the same. The insurer has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of maintainability of appeal in the light of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, corresponding to Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. The provisions of the two Acts are almost identical. Sub-section (1) of Section 96 states that if a judgment is obtained against the insurer, the insurer shall, subject ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ998
M.V. Tamaskar, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 178-A/1981 decided by Xth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, on 21-4-1986, arising out of Civil Suit No. 28-A/1979 decided on 29-7-1981 by the Civil Judge, Class II, Sanwer.2. This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law :'(i) Whether the learned Judge having found that lands in suit are admittedly ancestral properties, has not erred in passing a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff?(ii) Whether the learned Judge has not erred in invoking Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act for founding a right in the plaintiff to claim partition?'3. The material facts which are involved in this appeal are as under :One Bondar had two sons - Bhagirath and Chitar. Bondar died some 50 years back. Bondar's other brother namely Kisan also died after the death of Bondar. Bhagirath had one son and one daughter - Jagannath and Ramkunwarbai. Jaga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965MP122; 1965CriLJ704
Shiv Dayal, J.1. Gangaram, who appears to be a lad of 13 or 14 years, has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions, Judge, Jagdalpur. 2. Gangaram appellant and Ghanshyam, the deceased, were nearly of the same age, both residents of village Bhanbeda. On November 1, 1961, they both went out from Bhanbeda village together. At that time the accused had a Pharsi, while the deceased had a Tangia. They did not return to their village that night, but stayed at the house of Cherku (P. W. 7) in village Dabkatta. Next day, Cherku asked Itwari (P. W. 5) to reach the boys to their village. On their way, the two boys slipped away. On the evening of Thursday, Gangaram accused alone returned to the village. When he was asked about Ghanshyam, he stated that he and Ghanshyam had been lifted in a truck by some Dandukaranyawalas, but he (Gangaram) could manage to jump out of the truck. This answer was not satisfactory. Raghunath (P. W. 3), father of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP188; 1991(0)MPLJ360
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The plaintiff has come up in appeal aggrieved by an order of the trial Court holding an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to be not maintanable on account of bar created by Section 69(1) of Partnership Act, 1932.2. The plaintiff and defendants entered into a partnership on 15-12-1976. It appears; that the defendant No. 1 received certain payments relating to partnership and misappropriated the amount to his own use without distributing the same in accordance with the terms of partnership. On 1-6-1979, an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed seeking filing of the partnership agreement, incorporating the arbitrationagreement, in the Court and, thereafter, taking account through arbitration of the amount due and payable to the plaintiff and awarding the same to the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff also moved an application seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from realising any other payments due to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1993)DMC581; 1993(0)MPLJ175
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The plaintiff/appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing her suit for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, in reversal of the decree of the Trial Court which had decreed the suit.2. Vide order dated 13-3-1984, this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following substantial questions of law :'(i) Whether it was an admitted fact that, at the time of her marriage with the respondent, the appellant was aged 14 years and, therefore, it was not open to the first appellate Court to find that she was aged 15 years on that day ?(ii) Whether, even if it is assumed that the appellant was aged 15 years on the date of her marriage with the respondent, the marriage is void for the reason that the consent was given not by her but her father ?'3. Parties are Muslims. Marriage was performed between them on 5-4-1977. Mehr settled was Rs. 20,000/-.4. According to the plaintiff, she was given in marriage by her fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP67
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and decree of Pandey J., affirming those of the executing Court, raises the question whether on sale of land in execution of a decree for realisation of money, the auction-purchaser ipso facto acquires title to the growing crops. The learned Single Judge answered it in the affirmative. This is judgment-debtor's appeal.2. Smt. Shyamabai had a decree against the appellant Chhatradharilal for recovery of money. In execution of that decree, extensive lands belonging to the judgment-debtor were attached and sold. The decree-holder herself purchased the property for Rs. 30,000/- in Court sale. A sale certificate declaring her to be the purchaser of Khudkasht and sir lands, area 300.86 acres in village Thelka, was issued. In the sale certificate, khasra numbers together with area of every one of them were specified. It was on an application filed by decree-holder's agent, asserting that the decree-holder was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP193; 1962MPLJ112
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, No. 70 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act).2. Maghanmal applied on 9-9-1952, to the Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the 1951 Act for adjustment of his debts. In the list of creditors he mentioned the name of Mulchand with the remark that the owed him nothing still he (Mulchand) demanded repayment of an alleged loan. Other creditors are not concerned with this revision.3. Mulchand had made a separate application under Section 10 of the 1951 Act making a claim of Rs. 5,500/- against Maghanmal. On 1-5-1953, that petition was dismissed on the ground that Maghanmal had already filed a petition under Section 5 of the Act. Thereupon, on 16-9-1953, Mulchand made an application to the Tribunal in Maghanmal's case, for the determination of his debt. Maghanmal resisted Mulchand's claim. Shri S.L. Chopta, learned Civil Judge First Class, acting as the tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1990)87CTR(MP)66; [1990]186ITR348(MP)
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of the Tribunal's consolidated order dated October 11, 1984, passed in ITA Nos. 183 and 184 of 1983 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the calculation of tax payable by the assessee having been done as per ITNS-150 forms in March, 1982, the rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation ?'2. The assessment orders for both the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 were passed under Section 143(1) of the Act on October 29, 1977. Later on, certain mistakes in the assessment orders were detected by the Income-tax Officer and, therefore, notices were issued to the assessee for rectification of the mistakes. The assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1988(15)ECC238; 1987(12)LC1028(MP); 1985(19)ELT35(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Hind Syntex Ltd., which is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which has a factory in village Bibrod, district Dewas, where they are engaged in the manufacture of manmade yarns with different blends such as cellulosic spun fibre and non-cellulosic polyester waste. According to the petitioner the raw material for the above blended yarn is cellulosic fibre and non-cellulosic polyester waste; that the petitioner has been importing in India the non-cellulosic polyester waste as polyester waste through the Customs Department and that the petitioners have purchased the same polyester waste from the Indian Market. Further according to the petitioners, in order to keep the Industry running the petitioners decided to use non-cellulosic waste, the cost of which is considerably less than that on non-cellulosic fibre and thus started manufacturing yarn from the above waste by blending the same with cellulosic fibre by describing the product...
Tag this Judgment!