Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-10-1987
Reported in : II(1990)DMC208
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is husband's appeal, filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1984, passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 31-A of 1983.2. The parties are legally married husband and wife and have a son born to them out of this wedlock. The appellant, in his application filed under Section 13 of the Act, prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the respondent. It was alleged in the said application that the respondent is of a quarrelsome nature and lived with the appellant only for about 4 months in a period of 2-1/2 years. Even during this period, it was alleged, the respondent created problems by treating with cruelty the infant son and other members of the family. It was also alleged that the respondent once tried to throw the infant child into a well and also tried to burn h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-03-1987
Reported in : 1990(0)MPLJ73
S. Awasthy, J.1. In village Naogaon, Tahsil Khurai, District Sagar, defendant No. 1 Mancharasha, who died during the pendency of this appeal; and was shown as respondent No. 2 in this appeal prior to his substitution on 20-4-1983, owned about 53 acres of land jointly with his brother Hoshangji. Apart from this, Hoshangji owned 24 acres of land in his individual name exclusively. A case under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (No. 20 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') bearing No. 95-A/90/2-B of 1974-75 was started. A statement was published under section 11(3) of the Act on 7-1-1976 in view of the order passed on 20-12-1975 vide Ex. P. 11. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed an objection on 23-3-1976 which was rejected on 21-5-1976. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, therefore, filed a suit on 21-7-1976 under section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act, but, during the pendency of the suit, the appellate authority set aside the order dated 20-12-1975 and reman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-14-1987
Reported in : AIR1988MP145
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 3390 of 1986, Misc. Petition No. 3521 of 1986 and Misc. Petition 3637 of 1986 also. In all these writ petitions the validity of certain amendments made in the Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by M.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 has been challenged. To be specific, the amendments that have been made in Section 27 and Schedule 1 of the Act and Section 47-A as inserted in the Ad by the aforesaid amendment Act No. 8 of 197,S are sought to be declared ultra vires. Section 27 of the Act after its amendment by M.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 reads as hereunder :'27. Facts affecting duty to be set forth in instrument -- (1) The consideration, if any, the market value of the property and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set-forth therein. (2) In the case of instruments relating to immovabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-11-1987
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
Decided on : Mar-13-1987
Reported in : [1990]183ITR445(MP)
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. In this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the cancellation of penalty by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act ?'2. Shri Lahoti appeared for the Commissioner of Income-tax, while Shri J.P. Gupta appeared for the assessee. During the course of arguments in this case, learned counsel for the parties made a statement today that another Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 97 of 1983 in which a similar question was involved and in which also the assessee was represented by Shri J.P. Gupta and Shri Lahoti appeared for the Commissioner of Income-tax, be also taken up and decided along with the Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 43 of 1983. In view of the joint request made by learned counsel for both part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-28-1987
Reported in : AIR1988MP46; 1988MPLJ392
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Two appeals are filed by the same appellant against a common order passed by the trial Court in two suits instituted by the appellant. Both appeals are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 1987, respondents 1 to 3 are Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and its functionaries, while Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior is arrayed as respondent No. 4, because they figured as defendants in Civil Suit No. 39-A of 1982. In other appeal, namely, Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1987 which related to Civil Suit No. 35-A of 1987, the defendants/respondents are twosome, namely, the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and the Commissioner of the said Corporation. However, in both cases, the lis bears the same complexion inasmuch as by the common order, the trial Court has finally disposed of separate applications made in the two civil suits, one set for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, C.P.C. a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-03-1987
Reported in : 1988(34)ELT562(MP); 1988MPLJ701
1. The order of the Court was delivered by C.P. Sen, J. -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Notification No. 170 of 1975-Central Excise, dated 26-7-1975, issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 levying excise duty at the rate of Rs. 555/- per metric ton of sulphuric acid of the strength of 93% or more, and claiming refund of the excess amount of Rs. 9,14,050.96 recovered from the petitioner.2. M/s. Gwalior Rayon Silk . was incorporated in the year 1947, under the provisions of the Gwalior Companies Act, 1943, having its registered office at Birla Gram, Nagda, in Madhya Pradesh and is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is, inter alia, carrying on the business of manufacture of viscose staple fibre, rayon grade pulp and sulphuric acid. The sulphuric acid is manufactured by the petitioner at its factory at Nagda and the same has, at all material times, been who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-27-1987
Reported in : [1988]169ITR581(MP)
N.D. Ojha, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, has referred the following question to this court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that two separate assessments should be made on the assessee-firm--one for the period up to April 9, 1974, and the other for the period from April 10, 1974, to November 13, 1974?' 2. The order of the Tribunal making the reference is dated September 1, 1982. 3. The facts in a nutshell giving rise to the aforesaid question are that there was a partnership having three partners, viz., Bhagchand, Rajkumar and Krantikumar. Besides, Arvindkumar, a minor, was also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Bhagchand died on April 9, 1974, and a new deed of partnership was executed on April 15, 1974, whereby in place of the deceased, Bhagch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-26-1987
Reported in : [1989]178ITR284(MP)
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. The Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following two questions to this court for its opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deemed income of Rs. 20,000 added to the total income of the assessee in the assessment year in question could be considered for the purpose of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the levy of penalty could be justified in terms of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, notwithstanding the fact that the said Explanation was not invoked by the Department while levying the penalty in question ?'2. The facts in a nutshell which are necessary for answering the aforesaid two questions are that during the assessment year 1973-74, the asses-see filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 4,678. However, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 49, 403. The explana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-20-1987
Reported in : AIR1988MP70; 1988MPLJ119
C.P. Sen, J.1. The learned Single Judge has referred the following question for opinion of the Full Bench :--'Whether a sanction issued in the name of the President or the Governor of a State, as the case may be, irrespective of the fact of issue of the sanction by particular department of the appropriate Government, could be a valid sanction and any objection as to the validity of such sanction raised under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 in the course of and thereafter, would be meritless?'2. At the relevant time, the appellant was working as Naib-Tahsildar and was posted at Raipur, his appointing authority being the State Government, Naib-Tahsildar comes within the administrative control and supervision of the revenue department. While so posted there, it is alleged that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 300/- for settling encroachment case of the complainant, who had constructed a Tapra by encroaching on the Nazull and and was running a hotel there. It is said that the complainant p...
Tag this Judgment!