Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2153
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (for short, the 'CPC'), is made by Civil Judge, Class I, Shivpuri, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1/1978, whereby the Court, on its own motion, entertained a doubt and after drawing up a statement of facts of the case, has referred the following three points for decision of this Court :--v D;k vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ds}kjk lquokbZ dh tkus okyh dfFkr vihy dsoy in uke xyr fy[k nsus ls vihy dk fu.kZ;,oa vkns'k voS/k ,oa 'kqU; gks tkrk gSAc D;k O;ogkj U;k;ky; oxZ 1/kkjk 341 n.M izf;k lafgrk vkSj /kjk 1952 n.M izf;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr vijftyk U;k;k/kh'k ;k vij l= U;k;k/kh'k vFkok nksuksa dk iz'kkfud :I ls v/khuLFkU;k;ky; jgrk gSd D;k dfFkr iz'uksa dsmkj ds voyksdu esa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ds }kjk vkijkf/kd iqujkosnu 85 @ 79 ,oavijkf/kd iqujh{k.k ekad 39 @ 1979 tcyiwj ykW tujy i`'B 146 xuiryky fo#yk;dpUn ds voyksdu esa cU/kudkjd jgrs gSaA2. Before dealing with the points, few facts need be mentioned : Khyali Chandr...
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!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 : AIR1991MP340; 1991(0)MPLJ217
S.K. Dubey, J.1. The legal representatives of the purchaser/defendant No. 1 in the suit, aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/1976, on 9-3-1978, by District Judge, Morena, whereby the suit of the plaintiff, a lunatic, has been decree reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Sabalgarh, in Civil Suit No. 14-A/1970, decided on 31-1-1976.2. This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 22-2-1980 for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:--'Whether by applying the principle of 'feeding the estoppel' as contemplated by Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree for joint possession in as much as the defendant/ purchaser could claim at least the ownership of the undivided interest of Dropadi?'At the time of final hearing an application was filed by the appellants on 4-10-1990 under Section 100(5), Civil Procedure Code, for grant of leave to ur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)IIILLJ648MP; 1991(0)MPLJ284
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Writ of prohibition/mandamusis prayed by petitioner to restrain Union of India and others from pursuing a misconceived proceeding at a forum of incompetent jurisdiction, to nip in the bud the mischief complained.2. Facts of the case for disposal of the instant petition are few and admitted and those we state at the outset. Petitioner has been in the service of the Central Railways and during the relevant period he was posted at Gwalior Railway Station as Travelling Ticket Examiner. During the period, 2.1.1987 to 10.11.1987, it is alleged, he committed certain fiscal irregularities and an order was accordingly made for deduction from his salary of certain amount. That order was challenged under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, P.W. Act) in Labour Court No. 1 Gwalior. On 11.10.1989 directions were made by that Court in those proceedings against authorities concerned that they shall not give effect to the order passed for deduction from petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ18
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Law as to amendment of pleadings contained in Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been subject-matter of discussion in umpteen number of cases. The general principles are so well settled by the law laid down by the Apex Court, also illuminated in several decisions of this Court, as hardly need to be reviewed and restated. For principles see - Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moti Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484; Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267; L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Messrs Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 and P. H. Patil v. Kalgonda Shequonda Patil and Ors., AIR 1957 SC 363. Nevertheless, the difficulty faced by subordinate Courts while dealing with an application seeking an amendment resultinng in withdrawal of admission contained in the pleadings can be understood. The present one is such a case.2. A bare reading of Rule 17 shows that once the Court has formed an opinion that the amendment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1991)DMC380
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short 'the Act') was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 28-2-1989, against which the present appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Act by the husband.2. The husband claimed a decree of divorce on the alleged ground of cruel treatment meted out to him by the respondent/wife. The main allegations of the husband/appellant against the wife/respondent, which were sought to be proved in the case, are as under : --(1) That the wife quarrelled with the members of the family of the husband on trivial affairs and used to leave the house of the husband as and when she desired, without any pre-intimation or permission.(2) That during the gas leakage at Bhopal the eldest son, Santosh, of the parties died and other members of the family were admitted in the hospital. The respondent/wife inspite of the above information of the calamity in the family did not attend the hospital and did...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ264
ORDERB.C. Varma, Actg. C.J.1. The present petition purports to have been filed for the welfare of the Majhi community, as what has now come to be recognised as public interest litigation. It is common ground that Majhi, in certain districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh, has been declared to be a Scheduled Tribe by Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The State of Madhya Pradesh has also recognised Majhi as a class eligible for award scholarships (Annexure-C). The petitioner alleges and claims that Kewat, Mallah, Dhimar (Dhiwar), Nishad, Bhoi, Kahar, etc., are sub-castes/synonyms of Majhi and consequently are Scheduled Tribes. Even so, the Collector, Hoshangabad, declined to certify persons, who bear synonyms as Kewat, Mallah, Dhimar, Nishad, Bhoi, Kahar, etc., as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. It is claimed that all these communities are either sub-castes or synonyms of Majhi and, therefore, belong to a Scheduled Tribe - Majhi. The petitioner claims a direction to the Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ362MP; 1992(0)MPLJ214
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Persistant denial for long seven years of her claim for family pension made the desparate widow letter- petition this Court a year ago. Gopal, her husband, died on April 21, 1979. Then began her struggle for survival to feed and rear five minor children, besides nursing one in the womb and keeping her own body and soul together.2. Glimpses of her agonising travail came to be noticed by this Court when her petition dated October 4, 1989 was listed on November 11, 1989. Office was directed to issue notices to respondents 1 and 2 (Secretary, M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter, MPEB or Board), Jabalpur and Divisional Engineer, MPEB, Gwalior respectively) and respondent No. 3, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore. To expedite disposal, the notices were made returnable in four weeks and were directed to be served on Standing Counsel for the respondents - Shri K.N. Gupta and Shri N.P. Mittal, respectively. On January 16, 1990, Shri Gupta filed a joint return of ...
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!