Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1989]176ITR497(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.C.C. No. 253 of 1987 (CWT v. Babulal Agrawal) and M.C.C. No. 254 of 1987 (CWT v. Babulal Agrawal) as the petitioner has proposed a common question of law in all these petitions relating to the same party.2. By these reference applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the applicant has prayed that the Tribunal be called upon to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj's case : [1986]157ITR330(SC) the penalty for default under Section 18(1)(a) was required to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the amended law even in respect of default for the period prior to the amendment made with effect from April 1, 1976?'3. The statement of facts may be stated, in brief, thus : The assessee is an individual....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]172ITR158(MP)
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. In the proceedings for assessment under the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for theassessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, certain amounts of cash credits shown in the books of account of the assessees, M/s. Gangoomal Contractors, Phaphadih, Raipur, respondent No. 2, were added back as income of the assessee on the ground that it had failed to establish the genuineness of the cash credits in the name of Manubhai Shah. The orders passed by the Income-tax Officer in this behalf were upheld on appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax and on further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur by its order dated March 31, 1982. Subsequently, three applications were made by the assessee on January 20, 1983, for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act. The plea raised in these applications was that apart from arguing before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the second appeal that the cash credits shown in the name of Man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2000]245ITR277(MP)
N.K. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner who is an assessee both under the Income-tax Act and Wealth-tax Act, by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question two notices both dated March 18, 1988 (vide annexures P-11 and P-12), issued by the respondent--Income-tax Officer, H-Ward, Circle-I, Indore, under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it stood before the amendment of 1987), calling upon the petitioner to submit fresh returns of his income for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. At the outset it may be noted that the practice of this court has been not to interfere in such matters at the stage of issuance of notice and leave the aggrieved party first to answer such notice and exhaust the alternative remedies provided under the ordinary law before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227, However, in the instant case, it is noticed that the present petition stands admitted way back in 1988 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1991)DMC399
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the order dated 18-9-1989 of the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sehore refusing to grant a decree of divorce on the alleged ground of cruelty. The case of the wife, in brief, was that the husband used to physically assault the wife and ill-treat her. A specific case of physical assault pleaded was that the husband caused injury on the head of the wife with a sickle and chain.2. The husband opposed the petition for divorce denying the alleged acts of cruelty on his part. His case was that they lived a happy married life for more than ten years but they had no issues. The husband alleged that the wife deserted the house of the husband and left matrimonial home along with her uncle.3. On the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the trial Court by the judgment under appeal reached the finding against the wife and held that the alleged acts of cruelty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1992)DMC222
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act') by the husband against dismissal of his petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act.2. It is not disputed that on 26.3.1983 the appellant was married with the respondent. They have two daughters out of their wedlock. The appellant filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent resisted the petition by denying the allegations made against her. The petition was dismissed by the Court below. Being aggrieved, the husband has perferred this first appeal under Section 28 of the Act.3. On 3.1.1991, the learned Counsel for the parties were heard and at their request they were permitted to file written arguments on or before 5.1.1991. On 5.1.1991 an application was made for extending the time till 7.1.1991 for the purpose of filing written arguments. Although no orders were made on this application for extension of time, written arguments were filed in the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)MPHT344
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 10-6-99 passed in respect of Crime No. 135/98 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen.2. It appears that Karodilal Soni was working as a Patwari in District and Tehsil Raisen. An F.I.R, was lodged against him alleging that he had amassed Rs. 15,79,262.00 during the course of his service by the Authorised Officer of Special Police Establishment Lokayukt. This amount was alleged to be more than the income he could have earned from known source of his income. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, although the F.I.R. was lodged as far as back on 6-11-98.3. It is alleged in this revision that persuant to the F.I.R. the State of M.P. through Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Officer, Bhopal started investigation. Consequently, the premises belonging to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 the sons of Karodilal Soni were raided. It is alleged tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ141
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. First respondent herein filed a complaint before the Special Court, Bhind under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) alleging that the petitioner and second respondent committed offences punishable under Section 342, Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Special Court took cognizance and issued process. The revision petitioner challenges this order contending that since the Sessions Court has been specified as the Special Court, it cannot take cognizance of any offence without committal order by a competent Magistrate.2. The earliest decision of this Court on this controversy is one by Pandey, J. in Sukhlal Jatav v. State of M. P., 1993 MPLJ 875, 1993 JLJ 679 taking the view that a case under the Act cannot be committed to the Special Court and the Special Court is a Court of original Jurisdiction and is entitled to take cognizance without committal. Hon. Dwivedi, J. in Me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)MPHT208; 2006(1)MPLJ604
Manjusha Namjoshi, J.1. Having lost in Trial Court the defendants/appellants have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiffs had filed Civil Suit No. 22-A/1994 Bhagawandas and Anr. v. Harbans Singh and another, in the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad for specific performance of sale of property under the Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Trial Court decreed the suit on March 31st, 1999.3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court appellants while preferring this appeal stated that the Trial Court did not consider, appreciated and evaluated the evidence and misapplied the law. It was further contended that the Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the time was the essence of the contract for sale of property and the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.4. The plaintiffs/respondents have contested the appeal and supported the judgment and dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP147; 1993(0)MPLJ273
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Peculiar facts have given rise to this appeal. It is a classical example of petty landlord-tenant litigation being dragged on for unreasonable length of time, thanks to procedural tools available to unscrupulous litigants and errors of procedure unwittingly committed in law Courts.2. The suit accommodation is residential held by the tenant/defendant/appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The plaintiff/ respondent is a practising lawyer. It appears that the defendant/appellant No. 1 was a clerk in the office of the plaintiffs father, who too is an Advocate. Presumably this close affinity, and probably the convenience of the Advocate father and son, persuaded them in permitting their clerk occupying their premises as a tenant some time in the year 1974-75. According to the defendant No. I, he snapped his office relationship with the plaintiff w.e.f. 30-9-1976. The plaintiff must have expected the defendant No. 1 to vacate the premises simultaneously with his dissociat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1991]188ITR741(MP)
A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of M. P. No. 1019 (Suresh Deole v. Chief CIT) and M. P. No. 1077 of 1989 (Avinash Kutumbale v. Chief CIT). 2. The petitioner in M. P. No. 1019 of 1989, Suresh Deole, is practising as an architect since 1970. He obtained his degree in Architecture in the year 1969 from Maulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal. The petitioner was a duly registered valuer under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, vide order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated January 20, 1986. Thereafter, Section 34AB and other corresponding provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), were amended by the Finance Act of 1988 with effect from June 1, 1988, and the name of the Chief Commissioner was substituted in the place of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in respedt of according registration. The provisions contained in Chapter VII-B of the' Act were also amended with effect from June 1, 1988, and Section 34AE was insert...
Tag this Judgment!