Madhya Pradesh Court August 1989 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sharad Vijaya Saw Mills
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR266(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.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, Jabalpur 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 right in law in holding that, in the case of the assessee, there was a succession within the meaning of Section 188 and not a change in the constitution of the firm under Section 187(2) ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : The assessee is assessed in the status of a registered firm. For the assessment year 1978-79, for which the accounting year ended on Diwali 1977,the assessee filed two returns ; one for the period from Diwali 1976, to March 18, 1977, and another for the period from March 19, 1977, to Diwali 1977. The assessee contended that, on March 18, 1977, the assessee-firm was dissolved and another firm was ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitram Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC294; 1990ACJ614; (1991)IILLJ144MP
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is the workman's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award dated 30th April, 1984, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Bilaspur. M.P., in Case No. 27 of 1982 W.C.A. (E.F.), rejecting the appellant's claim for compensation on account of injury sustained by him, during the course of employment on 11th March, 1981.2. That the appellant was working as a labourer at Birri Dolomite Mines of the respondent on 11th March, 1981 and suffered injury on his left eye during the course of employment is now not in dispute. It appears that while the appellant was breaking Dolomite stone for cleaning the surface of the mine, a flying chip of the mineral struck his left eye and got stuck in his pupil. According to the appellant, since it was an employment injury resulting in 30% loss of his physical and earning capacity, he was entitled to compensation for the same....
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Dhanotlya Vs. M.P. Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR767]; (1994)IIILLJ330MP
V.D. Gyani, J.1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated January 13, 1987, passed by the Industrial Court, filed as Annexure-E to the petition.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Supervisor at O & M Division of the M.P. Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board') at Dhamnod, when his services were terminated by the respondents, vide order dated April 4, 1981 (Annexure - A), which was received by the petitioner on June 20, 1981. The petitioner challenged this order under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') before the Labour Court, Indore. The Labour Court by its order dated June 1. 1985 (Annexure - D), allowed his application and ordered petitioner's reinstatement with full back wages.3. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court. Allowing the appeal, the Industrial Court by its order dated January 13, 1987 (Annexure-E) holding tha...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Singh and Company Vs. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sale ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ33
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. He is also registered as such under section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. During the course of its business, the petitioner purchased iron scrap from Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Bhopal. According to it, it paid over and above the price of the goods sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent to the vendor, viz., Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Bhopal. The iron scrap so purchased was sold by the petitioner outside the State of Madhya Pradesh in the course of inter-State trade and commerce and furnished a declaration in Form C. According to the petitioner, the sales were effected to the dealers registered as such under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the period between 27-1-1981 and 31-3-1983, he furnished return to the Sales Tax Officer as required under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the State Act') and claimed exemption under the State Act by f...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Dhingra and anr. Vs. M.P. Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ48
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. One Shri C.S. Jasthey was running a shop styled as 'K. Olympic Steel Furnitures' as a tenant in part of Harisingh Building bearing Nos. 644 and 645, Marhatal, Jabalpur. An electric meter was installed in those premises bearing No. 42-23-51-09-052649-9/052649 for supply of electricity. Shri C.S. Jasthey vacated those premises but did not pay the charges for consuming electricity for the month of October, 1988 and December, 1988 amounting to Rs. 1271.00. For this reason, the service connection has been disconnected by the respondent, viz., M.P. Electricity Board. The petitioners claim that on termination of the tenancy of Shri C.S. Jasthey, they entered into an agreement with the landlord on 28-5-1988 and became its tenants. They started the actual business from these premises from 1-4-1989. It is worth mentioning that the alleged agreement between the petitioners and the landlord on 28-5-1988 has not been filed. On 22-2-1989, the petitioners applied for electric co...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Agrawal and anr. Vs. Phoolchand Garg and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ440
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. 'Judiciary is respected not on account of its powers to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.' (Collector, Land Acquisition v. Smt. Katiji, infra). This is the beacon light which must be held high while crossing the cross-roads of this case. The appellants make a call for justice mercifully praying that they should at least be heard, posing a question, would anyone anywhere hear them? The respondents rely on technicalities but forcefully submit that law supports their stand to contend that the appellants must be rebuffed at the threshold.2. Before the executing Court, the appellants herein being judgment-debtors, raised certain objections to the executability of the decree submitting that the decree-holder had received a few amount which the appellants were entitled to adjust. The executing Court held on 24-3-1979 that the objections could not be entertained in view of the payments having...
Tag this Judgment!Kalekhan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1119
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dt. 25-4-88, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Sessions Trial No. 167/87, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for one year.2. There is yet another connected appeal Cr. A. 201/88 Dinesh v. Union of India, arising out of the same judgment preferred by another co-accused Dinesh. Both Kalekhan and Dinesh were charged and tried together. Dinesh has been convicted Under Section 8/25 of the Act and similarly sentenced as accused appellant No. 1 Kalekhan. Both these appellants have been convicted and sentenced by a common judgment. The appeals were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.3. The charge against accused appellant Kalekhan was that on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC14; 1990(50)ELT15(MP)
ORDERG.G. Sohani, Acting C.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:(i) Petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on the business of manufacturing graphite electrodes, nipples and anodes at its factory situated at Mandideep, District Raisen, in the State of Madhya Pradesh.(ii) The excise duty payable in respect of manufacture of graphite electrodes is specified in Tariff Item No. 67 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant entry reads as under:'Graphite Electrodes and Anodes; all sorts.... Fifteen per cent ad valorem.'(iii) During the course of manufacture of graphite electrodes, a number of other products like graphite lumps, graphite flakes, graphite electrodes rejects, graphite nipple rejects, graphite dust etc. are obtained by the petitioner Company and for the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Patni Vs. Awantika Pustak Bhandar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP207; 1989MPLJ787
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. 1908 (for short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 4-8-89 passed by the 3rd Addl. Judge to the District Judge Indore in the summary suit No. 113-B/68.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these. The petitioner has instituted the said summary suit under Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code against the non-applicants.3. After the N.As. put in appearance the petitioner served on them summons for judgment as provided under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Order 37. The N.As. within the time of ten days filed their written submission praying for leave to defend.4. The contention of the petitioner was that the written submission constitutes written statement and it cannot be construed as an application for leave to defend. Thereon, leave conditional or otherwise could not be granted and the petitioner was entitled to judgment forthwith as provided in Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Order 37 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Nanak Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR235(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly, are as follows : During the course of the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer rejected the contention urged on behalf of the assessee that interest amounting to Rs. 68,641 should not be included in the total income of the assessee. The finding of the Income-tax Officer in this behalf was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but, on further appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed that appeal and held that the Income-tax Officer was justified in including the said amount in the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee sought reference, but as the application filed by the assessee in that behalf was rejected, the assessee has filed this application.3. Having he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »