Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-25-1996
Reported in : 1998(1)MPLJ115
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1989, passed in Civil Appeal No. 63-A of 1988 confirming the decree passed by the trial Court.2. The relevant facts necessary for the determination of this appeal are as follows :-The respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 84-A of 1984 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, against the appellant. This suit was for specific performance of the agreement dated 11-8-1994 whereby the appellants agreed to convey a building site of 15' x 40' abutting Khurai-Bina Road to the respondent. The consideration for the sale of the plot was Rs. 19,000/-. Subsequently, the respondent applied for amendment of his plaint claiming that he was entitled to claim Rs. 2,000/- by way of damages for removal of a shutter from the plot by the appellants and also claimed that a decree for demolition of roof on suit plot put by the appellants. The value of second relief was not disclosed. It appears that the trial Court allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-08-1996
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ327
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.Heard.1. A suit was filed Under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1%1. This suit was filed by Kastoori Devi. She has since died. An application was moved by Omprakash during the life time of Kastoori Devi. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that applicant had acquired the property on account of family partition. This application is said to have been allowed. After this application was allowed a further prayer was made. This was under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plea taken was that premises are required for bona fide need of Omprakash. This prayer has been rejected. Against this order, the present petition has been preferred. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that no error has been committed by the trial Court. According to him, if the original landlord dies then the question of deciding the plea of bona fide need of original landlord would not arise. Reliance is place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-27-1996
Reported in : (1997)140CTR(MP)329; [1998]229ITR123(MP)
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, has referred at the instance of the assessee-company on an application being made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law arising out of the order dated July 16, 1992, in I. T. A. No. 246/Jab of 1987 and cross-objection No. 46/Jab. of 1987 for the assessment year 1984-85 for the opinion of this court :' Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the deduction under Section 80I is to be allowed on balance of income after deducting the relief under Section 80HH from gross total income and not from gross total income as defined in Section 80B(5) of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a private company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of bidis. The assessees were assessed for the assessment year 1984-85 and the Assessing Officer held that the assessee-company was not entitled to deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Act. On appeal, the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-12-1996
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ376
ORDERA.K. Mathur, C.J.1. Petitioner has by this writ petition challenged Notification No. 7-B-1-38-91-CTD-V dated 27th March, 1995 issued by the respondent No. 1 State (Annexure-B) as being ultra vires Articles 14, 301, 302 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Company having its distillery and bottling unit at village Rojrachakra, District Raisen. The petitioner is manufacturing beer at its Indian Made Foreign Liquor Unit and has entered into an agreement with Jagajit Industries taking franchise of their products for being manufactured at the bottling unit of the petitioner. It is alleged that some more groups are having manufacturing facilities in the State of M.P., namely, U. B. Group, Shaw Wallace, B. D. A Limited; Jagajit Industries and Tilak Nagar Industries. It is alleged that the State of M.P. in exercise of its powers conferred under clauses (g) and (h) of Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Madhy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-11-1996
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ397
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal filed Under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the award dated 3.11.1988 rendered by the IVth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in claim case No. 71/86 awarding compensation Rs. 78,000/- to the appellants in a fatal accident action.2. The respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company Ltd. has also filed cross-objection challenging the impugned award.3. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children of late Laxmmarayan Yadav who died in a motor accident that took place on 24.6.1986 at Indore involving a Matador bearing Registration No. MBI 9073 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., for 'third party risk'.4. The deceased at the time of his death was aged 36 years and earning salary Rs. 750/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs. 500/- per month i.e., Rs. 6,00...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-31-1996
Reported in : 1996CriLJ3301
T.S. Doabia, J.1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision No. 219 of 1994, also as in both these petitions same legal issue has been raised. The facts have, however, been taken from Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1995.2. Proceedings have been initiated under Section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdhistha Bhrashta Acharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The initiation of these proceedings was challenged in the Court below. It was contended that there is non-compliance of Section 39 of the Adhiniyam. It was specifically urged that cognizance of this case could not be taken because there was no direction given by the State Government of the officer authorised by a notification under the section. It be seen that Section 39 was amended in 1984. It would, therefore, be apt to notice the amended as well as unamended provisions. These read as under :Unamended Amended1. Cognizance of Offences. Section 39. Cognizance39. All offence under this of Offences. Al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-01-1996
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
Decided on : Sep-11-1996
Reported in : [1997]226ITR753(MP)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. The petitioners by this writ petition have challenged the validity of Section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as being unconstitutional. The petitioners have also prated that the excluding of the loans taken on hundi and interest paid thereon from the total income of the assessee may be ordered.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered firm and petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners. The petitioners are carrying on business in cloth. Regular books of account have been maintained. For the purpose of accounting, the Diwali year is followed. During the accounting year, Diwali 1977-78, relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jabalpur, found that the assessee had taken hundi loans in cash from various parties after April 1, 1977, in the following manner :Sl. No.Name of partyDate of hundi loanAmounts (Rs.)1.Dr. Sureshchand Jain,Jawaharganj,10-7-19782,000Jabalpur 2.Mohanlal Gangaram,Gotegaon15-10-19783,0003.Smt. Jhunnibai w/oMulayamchand21-07-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-18-1996
Reported in : [1997]226ITR718(MP)
1. The petitioner has by this petition challenged the validity of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, whereby Sub-section (3) of Section 80L has been introduced with retrospective effect, i.e., April 1, 1976. The petitioner has also prayed that the assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 may be declared illegal. He has also prayed that the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,for imposition of penalty for the said period of assessment should be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act as illegal.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is an assessee. He was assessed to income-tax by respondent No. 2, ITO B-Ward, Ujjain. The sources of his income are house property and share income from three partnership firms, namely, Babulal Porwal, Ujjain, Harishchand Ashok Kumar, Ujjain and Sharad Textiles Agency. During the assessment year 1985-86, he also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-03-1996
Reported in : [1997]228ITR289(MP)
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court, on an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Revenue, as arising out of order dated October 15, 1987, of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 599/Nag of 1984 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the spouse's income is not assessable in the hands of the assessee even after the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, adopting the same principles as were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prembkai Parekh : [1970]77ITR27(SC) ?'2. The assessee is an individual, who was assessed for the assessment year 1978-79. On November 22, 1969, the assessee gifted a sum of Rs. 72,000 to his wife, Smt. Ramkalidevi, who on August 25, 1974, invested the amount in the firm of Satyanarayana Ashokkumar. Later, a sum of Rs. 45,000 was withdrawn by her from the ...
Tag this Judgment!