Madhya Pradesh Court March 1987 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.
Asho JaIn Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988MP230
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. By this writ petition, an order passed by the Collector, Satna determining the amount of entertainment duty and penalty Under Section 4-C of the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is sought to be quashed.2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out.3. The facts in a nutshell necessary for consideration of the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are that on an inspection, it was found that in the cinema hall owned by the petitioner, there were many persons who were sitting with used tickets inspection whereof showed that entertainment duty had been paid earlier. This clearly indicated that no fresh tickets had been issued to those persons with the result that entertainment duty to that extent was apparently evaded. On the basis of the reportof inspection and other records, ...
Jahangir Guli Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1889
ORDERRam Pal Singh, J.1. By this petition, the applicant challenges the order of the Sessions Judge, Vidisha, passed in Criminal Revision No. 82/1986 dated 25-8-1986.2. Facts. On 4-10-1985 Range Forest Officer Gyaraspur seized Jeep No. CIC 8073 and 3 licensed rifles from the possession of the applicant exercising his powers under Section 50(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is the registered owner of the jeep and also holds licence of these fire arms, issued to him by District Magistrate. These facts are not disputed by the State. The petitioner, when his jeep and fire arms were seized by the Forest Range Officer, filed an application before him on that very day for the return of the seized articles as interim receiver till final adjudication of the matter by the Court of law. The Range Forest Officer Gyaraspur sat over that prayer and did not pass any order. So the petitioner filed an application before udicia...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Phulchand Ganpatlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ73
S. Awasthy, J.1. In village Naogaon, Tahsil Khurai, District Sagar, defendant No. 1 Mancharasha, who died during the pendency of this appeal; and was shown as respondent No. 2 in this appeal prior to his substitution on 20-4-1983, owned about 53 acres of land jointly with his brother Hoshangji. Apart from this, Hoshangji owned 24 acres of land in his individual name exclusively. A case under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (No. 20 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') bearing No. 95-A/90/2-B of 1974-75 was started. A statement was published under section 11(3) of the Act on 7-1-1976 in view of the order passed on 20-12-1975 vide Ex. P. 11. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed an objection on 23-3-1976 which was rejected on 21-5-1976. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, therefore, filed a suit on 21-7-1976 under section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act, but, during the pendency of the suit, the appellate authority set aside the order dated 20-12-1975 and reman...
R.J. Trivedi (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(MP)101; [1987]166ITR856(MP)
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Case No. 49 of 1982.2. Aggrieved by the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the assessee as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax made an application to the Tribunal for referring certain questions of law to this court for its opinion. Misc. Civil Case No. 49 of 1982 is a reference made by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and Misc. Civil Case No. 50 of 1982 is a reference made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. So, both these Misc. Civil Cases are being decided by a common order.3. In Misc. Civil Case No. 49 of 1982, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, expenditure incurred on huts, pipes and drain cuttings could be treated as revenue expenditure ?'4. In Misc. Civil Case No. 50 of 1982, the following qu...
R.C. Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: AIR1988MP60
N.D. OJHA, C.J.1. The petitioner is a Advocate practising at Jabalpur. By this w(sic) petition, he has challenged the constitution(sic) validity of the M.P. Adhivakta Kalyan Nid(sic) Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to (sic) the Adhiniyam). He has also made a pray(sic) that affixing any Adhivakta. Kalyan stam(sic) contemplated by the impugned Adhiniyam(Sic) be prohibited by a suitable writ ordirection(sic)2. We have heard the petitioner who has(sic)ppeared in person, Shri M. V. Tamaskar,rned Addl. Advocate General for(sic)spondent No. 1 and Shri R. P. Verma forrespondents 2 and 3. We have also heard Shri(sic)S. Dharmadhikari who, as requested bythe Court on an earlier occasion, assisted thecourt as an amicus curiae.3. For the petitioner, it has been urged (sic)at the State Legislature was not competent (sic)enact the impugned adhiniyam, particularly (sic)so far as it related to the filing of (sic)emorandum of appearance or Vakalatnama (sic) an Advocate practising in the High Court...
Kashiram Ramgopal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(MP)207
C. P. Sen, J. - This judgment will also dispose of Misc. Civil Case No. 216 of 1981 (M/s. Kashiram Ramgopal, Seoni, v. CIT, Jabalpur) as a common question is required to be answered by this Court. As per directions given by this Court in the order dated 13-10-1980 passed in Misc. Civil Case Nos. 113/1976 and 114/1976, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for opinion of this court, in respect of the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT had jurisdiction to revise the orders of assessment under s. 263 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing interest paid to the M.P. State Finance Corporation ?'In the other case Misc. Civil Case No. 216 of 1981 reference has been made by the Tribunal as per order of this Court dated 13-10-1980 in Misc. Civil Case No. 483 of 1975, referring the second question for opinion of this Court.2. The assessee is a re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›