Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP205; [1970]76ITR404(MP); 1970MPLJ403
A.P. Sen, J.1. The question of law stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'A', at the instance of the Commissioner for the opinion of the Court is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 1,67,345 received by the assessee during the year under consideration is covered by the 2nd Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Section 5 of Finance Act, 1955.'2. The sum of Rs. 1,67,345/- represents the payment to the assessee, Capt. H.C. Dhanda on 28th January 1955 by His Highness Maharaja Yeshwant Rao Holkar, the Senior Up-Rajpramukh of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, in full and final settlement of his claim for damages for wrongful termination of his services as personal Adviser to his Highness. The whole question here is, were the moneys which the assessee so received after cessation of his office as compensation, in respect of which he was assessed for the year 1955-56, part of his in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP245; 1978MPLJ633
Verma, J. 1. By our order dated 13-4-1978, we have allowed the application made by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay in filing this appeal. While doing so, in that order we had stated that the reasons for holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies also to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No, 68 of 1976), will be given later. Accordingly, we are now stating the reasons for taking this view.2. Shri V.S. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on Hukumdev Narain v. Lalit Narain, AIR 1974 SC 480 contended that the different limitation of thirty days prescribed in Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as a result of the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1976, excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1%3 to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by virtu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The appellants/defendants, have directed this appeal under section 100 of the CPC, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.1.07 passed by Addl. District Judge, Burhanpur in Civil Regular Appeal No.16-A/05, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.05 passed by II Civil Judge Class-II, Burhanpur in Civil Original Suit No.52-A/2001, till the extent of decreeing the suit of the respondents for eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and dismissing the counter claim of the appellants for damages. While the decree of the trial court given under section 12(1)(a) of the Act has been set aside by the appellate court.2. It is undisputed fact of the case that Plot No.159/2 situated at Block No.36 at Shastri Chowk ward, Burhanpur is a property belonging to appellant No.2 Vidya Bai. While the adjoining plot and premises described in the plaint and also marked as A.B.C.D.F in a map annexed with such plaint, was of the property of the predecesso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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
Reported in : (2003)183CTR(MP)33; [2005]274ITR582(MP)
Arun mishra, J. :1.In this writ petition petitioner assails the order p. 10, dt. 23rd Dec., 1997, communicated on 16th Aug., 2001, passed under Section 264 of the IT Act, 1961, for the accounting year 1993-94 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order p. 7 passed under Section 139(9) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961').2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details indicate that petitioner is a Government company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1956') and formed by the State Government for the purpose of development of agricultural activities for providing various agricultural inputs at reasonable rates to the farmers by manufacture and also by way of trading in various items connected with agriculture and village development.3. Petitioner submitted its return of income for the accounting year 1993-94 in the asst. yr. 1994-95 on 30th Nov., 1994, declaring loss of Rs. 5,03,250 on estima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1983MP93
J.S. Verma, J.1. The petitioner No.1, Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act. 1956, and having its registered office at Birlanagar, Gwalior, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner No. 2, Jai Narain Somani, is a shareholder of this company, The petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter called 'the Company') has a composite textile mill at Birlangar, Gwalior, wherein it manufactures yarn and textiles. For running its mill, the company requires electricity and had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1, M. P. Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the Board') for supply of electricity to it in accordance with the specified terms and conditions. Under the agreement dated 27-10-1971, between the company and the Board, 1500 K.W. power as an H.T. consumer, wag to be supplied by the Board to the Company and the agreement was to commence from the date reckoned according to the stipulation therein. Supply of 1590 K.W. power under this agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP151
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is from a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated 2nd December 1948. It was filed in the Madhya Bharat High Court under Section 25 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act 1949 as it stood before it was amended by Madhaya Bharat Act No. 3 of 1950.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 6th November 1947 by Gulabchand Tongya against the heirs and legal representatives of Govindram Seksaria on the Original Side of the High Court of the former Indore State for specific performance of an agreement whereby, it is said, Govindram Seksaria agreed to sell to the appellant his share in a firm the business of which was to act as managing agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd., Indore.The suit was tried by Sanghi J., who on 11th June 1948 made a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing that on payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of 5/32 of the capital deed of assigning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992MP318; 1992(0)MPLJ953
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has made a prayer for directing the respondent No. 2 the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, (in short, the 'Board'), to reconsider the tenders, including that of the petitioner, but excluding the one submitted by the respondent No. 4 M/s D.C. Industrial Plants Services Ltd., (in short, the 'DCIPS'), 'for complete Design, Manufacture, Assembly, Testing at Manufacturer's work, Supply, Handling all along, Erection, Testing and Commissioning etc. of Ash Handling System for Sanjay Gandhi Thermal Power Station (2 x 210 MW) at Birsinghpur Pali-P.O., Distt. Shahdol (M.P.) as fully described in Tender Specification' in response to its tender notice dated 23-5-1990 (Annexure D), as amended by Addendum dated 4-9-1990 (Annexure F); after quashing its decision dated 14-6-1991 (Board's Annexure 5) for awarding the contract to the respondent No. 4 DCIPS and the Letter of Intent dated 21-6-1991 (Annexure J) issued in its favour.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001MP268; 2001(3)MPHT255; 2001(2)MPLJ644
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Finding a mist of confusion in the scheme underlying the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, in regard to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matters relating to various rights which may require adjudication of the disputes relating thereto which mist instead of being removed was felt to have been densified in view of the various decisions of this Court, two learned Single Judges of this Court thought it appropriate to refer the questions of law framed by them for being considered and answered by a Full Bench so that the position in law may be clarified and this is how this matter has come up for consideration before the present Full Bench constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. One of the learned Single Judges while hearing the aforementioned four second appeals involving the substantial question of law as to whether in view of the provisions of Section 57 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, the Civil Court h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP141; 1974MPLJ257
Tare, C.J.1. This opinion shall govern the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal as also the Second Appeal No 91 of 1966 -- (Durgaprasad v. Chunnilal).2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been referred to this Court for decision of the entire appeal by a Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 31-3-1971, as also for decision of the question whether a Bhumiswami under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is a tenure holder within the meaning of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956. That question is also involved in Second Appeal No. 91 of 1966 (Madh Pra). Therefore, by this opinion, we propose to decide that question and later on, we propose to decide the Letters Patent Appeal on merits. On expression of the opinion on the question referred Second Appeal No. 91 of 1966, will have to so back to the Single Bench for decision on merits in accordance with the opinion of this Full Bench. Along with these two cases. Second Appeal No. 447 of 1966 (Madh Pra) -- (Smt. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!