Madhya Pradesh Court July 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Central Circuit Cine Association, Bhusawal and ors. Vs. State of Madhy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: 1986MPLJ641
B.C. Varma, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax (Amendment) Act, 1983 (No. 34 of 1983) and the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Exhibition of Films by Video Cassette Recorder) Licensing Rules, 1983. The Act came into force in the State of Madhya Pradesh from 1-12-1983 while the Rules from 7-10-1983.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of exhibitors of films through projectors in cinema talkies while petitioner No. 2 is a partner in one of such talkies known as Jayanti Talkies, Jabalpur'. The members of the petitioner association are engaged in the business of distribution and exhibition of cinematograph films. Such exhibition of films in this State is regulated by the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (No. XVII of 1952) and the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1972. These rules regulate the grant of license for running such exhibition of cinematograph films. The term 'cinema' is defined to mean 'any p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amar Transport Services
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(MP)88; [1986]162ITR1(MP)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. The Income Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred to this court for its decision a question of law in accordance with the direction dated February 13, 1981, given in Misc. Civil Case No. 224 of 1977. The question of law referred is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding in paragraph 16 of its order that the transaction in question is in the nature of an exchange only '2. The assessee is a partnership firm which carried on transport business. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56, the assessee entered into an agreement dated March 24, 1955, with the Combined Transport Service, Bilaspur, a private limited company, according to which all the 17 passenger buses owned by the assessee-firm were transferred to the company for a total consideration of Rs. 1,51,565 against the written down value of these vehicles amounting to Rs. 31,024. The Income-tax Officer rejecte...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopi Talkies
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(MP)45; [1987]163ITR568(MP)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law, viz. :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow continuation of registration till the date of the death of the deceased partner ?'2. The material facts are these : The assessee claimed status as a registered firm in the return filed on June 30, 1975, for the assessment year 1975-76 for which the accounting period ended on November 13, 1974. During this period, one of the partners of the firm, viz., Gopiram, died on October 2, 1974. The assessee initially claimed the status of a registered firm for the entire period, including the period subsequent to the death of Gopiram. According to the terms of the partnership contained in the partnership deed, the provisions of the Partnership Act were applicable in respect of matters not...
Surajbai W/O Amardas Vs. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ236MP; 1990(0)MPLJ754
G.C. Gupta, J.1. Outlining the ambit and scope and restating conceptual contents of 'employment' as appearing in Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the requirement of present appeal filed by the claimant of the deceased workman under Section 30 of the Act, the claim of the appellant having been dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bilaspur, by his order dated January 30, 1981 in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 1/79.2. The appellant's husband Amardas was admittedly employed as a Chowkidar with the respondent National Building Construction Corporation at Akaltara Dist., Bilaspur. The said respondent/Corporation had undertaken some construction work as a contractor of the respondent Cement Corporation of India Ltd. It is not disputed that the respondent/Cement Corporation of India was the principal employer and respondent National Building Corporation was the immediate employer in relation to said Amardas. It is...
Ganesh Soap Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR876(MP)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disallowance of commission given by the assessee on sale bills themselves is permissible under Section 40A(2)(a) ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm comprising of three partners, Jhaku Bai, Smt. Narbada Bai and Smt. Rama Bai. Jhaku Bai is the main partner whose share in the partnership is one-half. It is claimed by the assessee that an amount of Rs. 66,930 was paid to Smt. Pushpa Rathore, wife of Jhaku Bhai, as sole proprietor of a selling agency towards commission at the rate of nine per cent. on the sales effected by the assessee. It was claimed that this commission of nine per cent. was deducted in the bills of sales made by the assessee showing the same as commission paid to Smt. Pushpa Rathore. This amount was claimed as a deduction towards busi...
Electro Medicals Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR807(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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,000 claimed by the assessee as development expenditure was rightly treated as a capital expenditure ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows :The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacture of scientific instruments. The assessment year in question is 1975-76. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed that the expenditure of Rs. 5,000 incurred by the assessee on account of payment to the National Research Development Corporation in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the assessee with the aforesaid Corporation be allowed as the ...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Savji and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1353
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. Heard Shri S.S. Swami, learned Panel lawyer for the applicant-State on the question of admission.This revision petition arises out of an order dt. 8-4-1986, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Cr. Revision No. 17 of 1986.2. Shri Swami, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the learned Judge had no power to modify the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.3. A perusal of this revision petition itself, which enumerates grounds of revision, shows that one of the grounds mentioned therein is that 'proceedings against the respondents were initiated under Sections 107 and 116, Cr. P. 'C. It has been contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge erred in law in setting aside the condition with regard to the solvency of the surety. Another ground contained in the revision-memo is that the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is contrary to law. A perusal of the impugned order goes to order goes to show that on 2-4-1986 in absence of...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and A ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ124
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeals Nos. 361, 362, 363 and 364 of 1980 which involve identical facts and legal submissions.2. The appellant Corporation filed applications Under Section 75(2) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Employees State Insurance Court, Bhopal for recovery of employees' contribution from the respondents. It was alleged in the said application that Central Press (Dainik Bhaskar) is a factory as defined Under Section 2(12) of the Act and hence the respondents were liable to pay employees' contribution as required Under Section 40 of the Act. It was their case that in spite of the aforesaid legal obligation, the respondents have not paid employees' contribution and have also failed to produce records for inspection. The appellants, therefore prayed that the Insurance Court be pleased to order recovery of the amount together with interest and costs. This claim was re...
Premabai and ors. Vs. Hukum Chand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: I(1993)DMC362; 1992(0)MPLJ60
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 16S1 of 1981 which is between the same parties and involves a similar question of law.2. This appeal, by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.8,81, passed by Sh. R.P. Tiwari, II Addl. District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 19-A of 1978 dismissing the same as barred by res-judicata. This very question is involved in the connected Civil Revision where issue regarding res judicata has been decided against the appellants.3. The case has a chequered history starting from 1929 and involves property dispute between the family members of the two brothers viz. Jiwanlal and Bahoranlal. It appears to be the common ground that the suit property was jointly owned by Jiwanlal and Bahoranlal, who were admittedly Hindus. Jiwanlal died in the year 1921 leaving behind his widow, Gangabai and daughters Premabai, Rukmanibai and Rahibai, the present appellants. Gangabai also died in 1966. ...
Krishnagopal Vs. Purushottam and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1946; 1986MPLJ511
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 12-3-1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawad, district Mandsaur regarding prosecution of the petitioner in respect of offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The circumstances giving rise to this petition are these; on the report dt. 18-2-76 lodged by the petitioner Krishnagopal, the non-applicant No. 1 was prosecuted by the police in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawad in respect of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. (vide Cr. Case No. 307/76). Ultimately charge only under Section 420 of the I.P.C. was framed.3. By his judgment dt. 12-3-82 the learned Magistrate acquitted the non-applicant Purshottam of the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and in para 12 thereof passed the impugned order.4. According for the petitioner's case the non-application No. 1 had on 20-1-76 purchased groundnut oil worth R8. 34,534.38 paise from th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »