Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-27-1984
Reported in : AIR1985MP42; 1985MPLJ32
Oza, Ag. C.J.1. The three appeals Nos. 4, 5 and 7, all of 1983, arise out of a composite order passed by Company Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Verma, by his order dated 3rd Oct. 1983 in Company Petition No. 5 of 1981. This order disposes of a prayer under Section 397 of the Companies Act and Sections 398 and 155 of the Companies Act. The prayer under Section 397 was rejected and against this the present appeal is No. 4 of 1983. Prayer under Section 398 has been partly allowed and, therefore, appeal No. 7 of 1983 is preferred against that part of the order and as the prayer under Section 155 was rejected, an appeal is preferred which is appeal No. 5 of 1983.2. In all these three appeals the question of maintainability of the appeals arises in view of the abolition of Letters Patent Appeals in Clause 10 by the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981, passed by the State Legislature and which received the assent of the President on 21st June 1981...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-14-1984
Reported in : 1985MPLJ288
C.P. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of the single Bench of this Court dismissing their claim by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court for damages against the defendant for his rash and negligent act in causing death of deceased Kantidevi, by removing her gall bladder during operations.2. At the relevant time in the year 1958 plaintiff No. 1 Ram Bihari Lal was Collector, Shahdol and was aged about 40 years. His wife deceased Kantidevi was aged 32 years. She had given delivery of 7th child 41/2 months prior to her death. Plaintiffs 2 to 8 were minors at that time. Defendant Dr. J. N. Shrivastava was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon Grade-1 and was in-charge of the Sohagpur Government Hospital at Shahdol. It was 28 bedded hospital. Although Shahdol was the district headquarters, district hospital was at Umaria and Dr. L. K. Mishta (P. W. 7) was the District Medical Officer. On the night in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-14-1984
Reported in : [1984]148ITR703(MP)
K.N. Shukla, J.1. In compliance with the direction of this court by order dated December 10, 1980, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur, has referred the following question for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in maintaining the penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Facts as found and stated by the Tribunal are as follows : The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of executing civil contracts. It was constituted by a deed of partnership, dated October 22, 1963. The first accounting year of the assessee ended on Diwali, i.e., 4th November, 1964, which was the previous year for the assessment year in question, i.e., 1965-66.3. In the relevant previous year, the assessee executed certain contracts as a Sub-contractor of M/s. Raipur Provincial Engineering Company (hereafter referred to as the 'principal contractors'). Some...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-20-1984
Reported in : 1984CriLJ975
ORDERC.P. Sen, J.1. Under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the District Magistrate. Chhatarpur, dated 7-12-1981 attaching the properties of the petitioners under Section 14 of M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan Pra-bhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam).2. Petitioner No. 1 Gorelal is the husband of petitioner No. 2 Mannubai and father of petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 Laxmiprasad and Deviprasad. They constitute a joint Hindu family and residing in house No. 25 on Gandhi Road, Chhatarpur. They own Gupta Lodge and New Gupta Lodge near bus-stand, Chhatarpur. They also own some agricultural land. Gupta Lodge is run in partnership between petitioners 1 and 3 while New Gupta Lodge is in partnership between petitioners 2 and 4. The petitioners 1 and 2 settled down at Chhatarpur in the year 1948-49 and they had a modest beginning by running a grocery shop in the year 1951 and then they started a sw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-25-1984
Reported in : (1984)42CTR(MP)319; [1985]154ITR1(MP)
Mulye, J. 1. The petitioner, who is an income-tax assessee, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the notice dated March 18, 1981 (annexure-O), issued to him under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening his assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 under Section 147(a) by respondent No. 1, the ITO, E-Ward, Indore.2. The petitioner's case, as stated in the petition, may be stated, in brief, thus: The petitioner is a partner of the firm, M/s Yonus & Iqbal Co. The only source of income of the petitioner is the share income from the said partnership concern and he has no other source of income nor any immovable property. The petitioner is being regularly assessed to income-tax from the assessment year 1951-52 on the share income from the firm, M/s Yonus & Iqbal Co. The petitioner filed his return for the assessment year 1972-73 before the ITO, M-Ward, Indore, who, at the relevant time had the jurisdiction in respect of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-04-1984
Reported in : AIR1984MP164
B.M. Lal, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1960. It is styled as 'Awas Rahat Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Bhopal' hereinafter referred to as the Society.3. The Society was registered in the year 1981. Its object was to get land from the respondent No. 1 for purposes of constructing residential houses for its respective members. For this purpose, the Society applied for land by its application D/- 6-7-1982, for allotment of land admeasuring 16.50 acres located in Arera Colony. Bhopal.4. At the time of allotment of land, the Society had only 79 members, but soon after, in February 1982. it was reported that the membership had gone up by 187 and later on 226. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner society that some Officers of gazetted rank and even of I. A. S. cadre, are also members ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-12-1984
Reported in : II(1984)ACC281
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This appeal, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is by the claimants aggrieved by the quantum allowed to them, by an award dated 17-11-1977, passed in M.A.C.C. No. 32 of 1974, by the Court of Shri N.K. Singh, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jabalpur.2. Facts, in brief, are that on 28-8-1974, at about 10-30 p.m., deceased Sardar Indrajeet Singh, aged about 23 years, while driving tempo MPJ 4495, met with an accident, on collision with Truck MPJ 1352, owned by respondent No. 1, Keshav Prasad and driven by Sk. Hafeez respondent No. 2 at the crossing point of the two roads in Napier Town, Jabalpur. The deceased succumbed to the injuries in the Victoria Hospital at about 3.40 a.m. on 29-8-1984. The two claimants No. 1 and 2, mother and father, aged 40 and 50 respectively, submitted that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- p.m., and after spending Rs. 100/- p.m. on himself, used to contribute Rs. 300/- each month. They al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-29-1984
Reported in : (1985)ILLJ272MP
ORDERC.P. Sen, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the employer challenging the award given by the arbitrators under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Aftab-E-Jadid is an Urdu daily newspaper published from Bhopal and it employs certain journalists and other employees for running the paper. One Ishtiaq Arif was the Chief Editor of the paper and he tendered his resignation on 29th April, 1979. On 1st May, 1979 the Sub-Editor Sherqui Khalidi also tendered resignation. A notice was served on the employer by its union calling upon the employer to tender a public apology for misbehaviour with the Chief Editor and all the employees should be taken back on duty. Thereafter the workers resorted to hunger strike in front of the premises of the employer. The Assistant Labour Commissioner started conciliation proceedings by calling both the parties. On 11th May, 1979 the parties entered into an arbitratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-23-1984
Reported in : [1986]158ITR674(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J. 1. By this reference made under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act read with Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, has called for the opinion of this court on the following question of law ; ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in interpreting the word ' outstanding ' with reference to Section 2(m)(iii)(a) of the W.T. Act and accordingly whether the disallowance of the tax liability on this ground was justified ' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference, as per the statement of case received may be stated, in brief, thus : The assessee, Smt. Josephine Pinto, a citizen of India, is assessed as an individual and the assessment years involved are 1971-72 to 1974-75. The relevant valuation dates are December 31, 1970, December 31, 1971, December 31, 1972, and December 31, 1973, respectively. The assessment orders dated February 24, 1979, indicatethat the returns of wealth-tax f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-27-1984
Reported in : [1986]158ITR705(MP)
B.M. Lal, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in response to an order passed by this court in M.C.C. No. 185 of 1975 on September 30, 1980, directing the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), to answer the following questions:' (a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in applying Section 145(2) of the Act ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in making further additions of Rs. 25,000, then again Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 30,000? (c) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in saying that the raising contracts did not inspire confidence ? (d) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the raising contractors could not be treated as benamidars ? (e) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of ...
Tag this Judgment!