Madhya Pradesh Court July 1986 Judgments
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Punamchand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1232
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dl. 8-8-1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Judge, Mandleshwar in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1985 whereby the order dt. 4-8-1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanswad in Cr. Case No. 334 of 1983 discharging the accused hasbeen confirmed.2. Facts giving rise to the petition are these : G. L. Bansal, Food Inspector, Barwani, District Mandleshwar on 21-11-1983 filed a criminal complaint defined in Section 2(d) of the Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanswad against the respondents in respect of the offence punishable under Section 7(v) read with Section 16(1)(g) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). In obedience to summons, the respondents put in appearance on 14-12-1983. The case was adjourned to 30-4-1984, 3-7-1984and 4-8-1984 for evidence before charge. The Food Inspector was absent on these dates and no evidence was produce...
Tag this Judgment!Narayandas Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ434
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and order dt. 21-1-1983 passed by the Sessions . Judge, Shajapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1982 convicting the petitioner Under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (for short 'the Act') for contravention of the M.P. Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order 1960 (for Short 'the Order') made Under Section 3 of the Act.2. The circumstances giving rise to this petition are these. The petitioner is an appointed retailer in foodstuffs at village Padhana at some distance from Sarangpur. District Shajapur. On 27-4-81 a quota of 17 quintals of sugar in 17 bags was handed over to him by the Food Corporation of India, Sarangpur. Out of the quota 16 bags of sugar were being transported in a tractor-trolly and the remaining one bag was sent in a bullock-cart. At 16 K.Ms. from Sarangpur, the police checked the trolly the same day and found that the bags contained only 15 quintals and 84 K....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Lachmandas Bhatia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR586(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax 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 Wealth-tax Officer to determine the value of the residential house in question in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, even though the said rule was enacted on April 11, 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 assessment year 1977-78, the assessee declared the value of the house as Rs. 3,25,000. Later on, a revised was filed by the assessee whereby the value of the house was declared as Rs. 58...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR840(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, 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 two questions 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 Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on whic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Nathani Brothers
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC194(MP)
ORDERG.G. Sohani, J.1. The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 334 of 1984, as the following common question of law has been referred to this Court for its. opinion, by the Board of Revenue under Section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that hair belting was covered under entry No. 6 of Schedule I appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?2. The material facts giving rise to these references, briefly are as follows:The assessee was assessed to tax under the Act for the period from 1st July, 1975 to 30th June, 1976. The contention advanced on behalf of the assessee before the assessing authority was that 'hair belting' was covered by entry No. 6 of Schedule I appended to the Act. This contention was not upheld by the assessing authority. An appeal preferred by the assessee again...
Tag this Judgment!Pritamsingh Amarsingh and Co. Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC270(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :The petitioner carries on business as a contractor and as a supplier of materials to the railway and other departments of the State Government and public undertakings. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1st April, 1967 to 31st March, 1972. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment and penalty passed against the assessee, the assessee preferred revision petitions. In the revision petition filed against the order of assessment in respect of the assessment year 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, the Deputy Commissioner, by his order annexure 17 dated 16th May, 1980, affirmed the amount of tax assessed by the assessing authority but reduced the amount of penalty. In the revision petitions preferred agai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakashchandra Basantilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(MP)203; [1986]162ITR536(MP)
Sohani, J. 1. 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 correct in holding that Section 64(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act had no application to the case and that the income of the assessee's wife could not be clubbed with the income of the assessee ?' 2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows: The assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year is 1979-80. For the assessment year in question, the Income-tax Officer clubbed the income of the wife of the assessee from her membership in the partnership firm, M/s. Basant Traders, of which the assessee was a partner, with the income of the assessee. The contention of the assessee that as he was a partner in the firm representing the Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Gopalji Sugandhi Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR802(MP)
Sohani, J.1. The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 380 of 1984, 381 of 1984 and 17 of 1985.2. The material facts giving rise to these applications, briefly, are as follows :The applicant is a Hindu undivided family. The assessee was asked to show cause why action under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), be not taken against the assessee. The assessee showed cause but the Wealth-tax Officer passed orders imposing penalty on the assessee. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Those appeals were allowed. The Revenue thereupon preferred appeals before the Tribunal which allowed the appeals.3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee sought a reference, but the application made by the assessee in that behalf was rejected. Hence, the assessee has filed these applications.4. Though the assessee has prayed that a ...
Tag this Judgment!Budhwara Bai Vs. Cement Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC522
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, arises out of an accident which has been considered by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 145/81 (Smt. Surajbai v. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Bilaspur & Anr) and therefore involves identical questions of fact and law. The aforesaid appeal has been allowed by this Court by its order dated 22-7-86. Since the accident and the legal submissions are the same, it is not considered necessary to record those findings again in this appeal. The aforesaid judgment shall, therefore, govern the disposal of this judgment.2. The only other submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Budhwara (PW. 1) in her evidence before the Commissioner has accepted that her husband was working under Horilal contractor and since the aforesaid contractor has not been made a party to the case the claim was not maintainable. It is true that Budhwara in her cross examination admitted that her husband ...
Tag this Judgment!Gendalal Bhaggaji and anr. Vs. Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas480(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No. 2032 of 1986, filed on behalf of the President, Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Ratlam, under Section 530(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The petitioner firm, Gendalal Bhaggaji, has filed a winding-up petition against the respondent company under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the respondent company is unable to pay its debts. On notice of show cause having been issued to the respondent company as to why the petition for winding up be not admitted, the respondent company, by their reply, have shown cause.3. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 949 of 1986 for appointment of a provisional liquidator, notice of which was given to counsel for the respondent company.4. By an order passed by this court on April 4, 1986, the official liquidator was appointed as the provisional liquidator as the said prayer for appointment of a provisional liquidator was not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.5. The provis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »