Madhya Pradesh Court March 1986 Judgments
Straw Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ469MP; 1986MPLJ152
J.S. Verma, Actg., C.J.1. Petitioner Straw Products Limited is a Public Company having its registered office at Jaykaypur, Rayagada, District Koraput (Orissa) and has one of its Division Board Mills with its office and factory at Bhopal. The Company made an application dated 8th November 1985 (Annex. A) to the Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 25O and/or Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for permission to close machine No. 2 in the Board Mills at Bhopal resulting in retrenchment of its workmen employed in machine No. 2. The State Government by its order dated 3rd January 1986 (Annex. G) refused permission under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act to close machine No. 2 for the reasons stated therein and by its order dated 4th January 1986 (Annex.J) refused the permission for retrenchment of the workmen employed in machine No. 2 under Section 25N for the same reasons. Aggrieved by this decision of the State Government, this petition has been filed for qua...
Tag this Judgment!Ajij Khan Vs. SirajuddIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1304
ORDERK. L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 4-2-1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Kukshi in Criminal Case No. 1176 of 1984 whereby it has been held that the complaint case, in view of the police challan, cannot be committed to the Court of Session.2. Facts giving rise to the petition are these : on 10-9-1984, the petitioner filed a complaint against the non-applicants in the' Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Kukshi in respect of offences under Sections 148, 307 and 506, IPC all read with Section 34 ibid. After inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'the Code') the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 307, IPC and ordered issue of process.3. On 4-2-1985, the learned Magistrate has held that from the police challan in connection with the occurrence, prima facie offences only under Sections 147,148,324 and 506 IPC appear to have been committed and in view of the cha...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Vs. Ramibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1952
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 25-10-1983 passed by the Additional, Sessions Judge, Ratlam Camp Jaora in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1981 maintaining the order Dt. 28-9-1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jaora under Section 125 of the Code for making a monthly allowance for the non-applicant's maintenance in the sum of Rs. 150/-.2. The non-applicant is the wife of the applicant. By his order Dt. 28-9-81 the learned Magistrate has ordered the applicant to make a monthly allowance of Rs. 150/- for the maintenance of the non-applicant. It has been made payable from 25-11-78 which is the date of application under Section 125 of the Code.3. The applicant has urged that on the material on record the learned lower courts have erred in arriving at the conclusions they did. It was also urged that no reasons have been assigned for granting maintenance fro...
Tag this Judgment!Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust Mhow Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR832(MP)
INDORE BENCHSOHANI J. - By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 17,414 being rental income, should be excluded from the total income of Rs. 73,484.06 (which sum includes the rental income of Rs. 17,414) of the Trust for the purpose of calculating the permissible limit of accumulation of income under section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : The assessee is a trust and the assessment year in question is 1976-77. Under section 11(1) of the Act, the assessee claimed deduction on account of 25%, accumulation, of a sum of Rs. 17,894. This contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. But on appeal, the Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. P. Bidi Leaves and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(MP)124
J. S. Verma, J. - The question of law referred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and at the instance of the Revenue, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to renewal of registration under s. 184/186 for the year under consideration ?'2. The relevant assessment year in the present case is 1976-77 in respect of the same assessee, the same question was referred for decision of this Court relating to asst. yr. 1972-73 and 1973-74 on the same set of facts. The decision of this Court reported in CIT of MP v. Bidi Leaves and Company : [1983]144ITR487(MP) for these earlier year 1972-73 and 1973-74 was in the affirmative in favour of the assessee-firm. It was held that the assessee firm was entitled to the continuation of registration under s. 184/186 of the IT Act for those years. It is not disputed that following the earlier decision relating to the same assessee reported in CIT v. M. P. Bidi Leaves Co. : [1983]144ITR487(M...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(MP)76
ORDERG. G. Sohani, J. - By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench referred the following two question of law to this Court for its opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the IAC has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 especially in view of the IT Act, 1961, with effect from 1-4-1976 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was valid ?'When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, the Court, by its order dt. 27-3-1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the ITO to the IAC. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Lachhmandas BhatiA.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(MP)149
ORDERSohani, J. - By this reference under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the WTO to determine the value of the residential house in question in accordance with the provisions of r. 1-BB of WT Rules, even though the said rule was enacted on 1-4-1979 and the assessment was completed after that date ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows :The assessee owns a residential house at 21, Race Course Road, Indore. In the return of wealth filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1977-78, the assessee declared the value of the house as Rs. 3,25,000. Later on, a revised return was filed by the assessee whereby the value of the house was declared as Rs. 58,450 by valuing the property according to r. 1-BB o...
Tag this Judgment!Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(MP)279
ORDERSohani, J. - By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 17,414 being rental income, should be excluded from the total income of Rs. 73,484.06 (which sum includes the rental income of Rs. 17,414) of the Trust for the purpose of calculating the permissible limit of accumulation of income under s. 11(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly are as follows : The assessee is a trust and the assessment year in question is 1976-77. Under s. 11(1) of the Act, the assessee claimed deduction on account of 25% accumulation, for a sum of Rs. 17,894. This contention was rejected by the ITO. But on appeal, the AAC upheld the contention of the assessee. On further ...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhaswarooplal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ921
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for an order for return of the complaint from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jawad, District Mandsaur (M.P.) for presentation to proper Court.2. The circumstances giving rise to the petition are these : The non-applicant 2 Mst. Lilabai, on 30-9-78, filed a complaint against the present petitionerand the non-applicants 3 to 8 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Jawad alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant No. 3 Ashok, the marriage having taken place in 1974. The non-applicant 3 has married the non-applicant No. 4 Kamlabai and the petitionerand the other non-applicants have aided him in the said crime of bigamy punishable Under Section 494 of the I.P.C. The complainant was examined on the aforesaid date and after completion of inquiry Under Section 202 of the Code, on 30-11-78, issued of process was ultimately ordered on 20-2...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1688
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 6-1-1986 passed by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Cri, Case No. 834 of 1985 whereby he has ordered that the third sample be sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory for certificate treating the sample as one of item No. A-18-11 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (for short 'the Rules').2. The circumstances giving rise to this revision petition are these : The applicant manufactures and sells what he terms as 'Gold Finger'. It is prepared with Maida, salt, Papadkhar and colour. It is to be consumed after being fried. A sample of the article was purchased from him by the Food Inspector. On analysis, the Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated. The applicant was accordingly prosecuted.3. As provided under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulterated Act 1954 (for short 'the Act') the applicant applied for getting the sample examined by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »