Madhya Pradesh Court December 1993 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.
Narayan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ858
M.W. Deo, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 276CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for wilfully failing to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time under Section 139(1) of the same Act resulting in sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.2. The material facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated thus : The petitioner is an income-tax payer since 1965-66. There was no default of any kind till 1983-84. The petitioner was to have filed the return of the previous year 1981-82 (Diwali to Diwali) for the assessment year 1983-84 latest by June 20, 1983. He filed the return late, i.e. after 20 months on March 27, 1985. The return was considered and the assessment order was passed assessing the petitioner's income at Rs. 25,825 and he was ordered to pay a total sum of Rs. 5,212 regarding income-tax, surcharge and penal interest. There is no dispute about all these facts. The petiti...
Narayan Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(MP)608; [1994]208ITR82(MP)
M. W. DEO J. - This criminal revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under section 276CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for wilfully failing to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time under section 139(1) of the same Act resulting in sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.The material facts are not in dispute and may be briefly be stated thus : The petitioner is an income-tax payer since 1965-66. There was no default of any kind till 1983-84. The petitioner was to have filed the return of the previous year 1981-82 (Diwali to Diwali) for the assessment year 1983-84 latest by June 20, 1983. He filed the return late, i.e. after 20 months on March 27, 1985. The return was considered and the assessment order was passed assessing the petitioners income at Rs. 25,825 and he was ordered to pay a total sum of Rs. 5,212 regarding income-tax, surcharge and penal interest. There is no dispute about all these facts. The petition...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ashwinkumar Vishnudutta Jha and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ135
ORDERM.W. Deo, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 8-5-1986 passed by the Special Judge, Indore in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1985 by which the respondent No. 1 was discharged of offences under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, Section 5(l)(c), 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B, Indian Penal Code. By the said order respondents 2 and 3 were also discharged of the offences under Section 496, Indian Penal Code, Section 5(l)(c), Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B, Indian Penal Code.2. The facts are stated lucidly in full detail in the impugned order of discharge. The material facts out of them may be stated thus. In the year 1980-81 the annual examination of April 1981 was to be conducted of the premiddle standard by Director of Public Education, Bhopal according to rules. The respondent No. 1, under the rules, was incharge of the examinations of Indore Division in the capacity of th...
Premier Brass Metals Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ435
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, is facing action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, questioning the constitutional validity of the said provision and legality of the action taken thereunder. The petitioner-company further seeks a writ in the nature of prohibition against the respondent No. 2 restraining them from interfering in any way in the affairs of the petitioner in carrying on business in their unit at Mandi Deep, Madhya Pradesh.2. The petitioner is a private limited company having its industrial unit at Mandi Deep, Madhya Pradesh where it manufactures copper and copper allied pipes and tubes. It is common ground that the company borrowed a term loan of Rs. 63 lacs from the respondent No. 2 in February 1985, additional term loan of Rs. 17 lacs in March 1987 and furt...
Jai Shankar Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ592
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner has brought before this Court a public interest litigation. This case appears to us to be an ugly instance of administrative arbitrariness, which would be apparent from the facts which we shall shortly state.2. The respondent No. 2 Shri M. K. Taimuri was due for retirement on attaining age of superannuation with effect from 30-7-1993 as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Under Fundamental Rule 56, extension of service up to the age of sixty years, beyond the age of superannuation i.e. fifty eight years, can be granted only to scientific, technical and other persons having special or expert knowledge in any field. The relevant provision under F. R. 56(a) reads as under :-'F.R. 56(a) Age of Superannuation -(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, other than a Class IV Government servant, shall be the date on which he attains the age of 58 years :Provided that scientific, ...
Nani Bai and ors. Vs. Ishaque Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1993
Reported in: 1995ACJ292
R.D. Shukla, J.1. The common questions of fact and law (excepting the quantum) are involved in Misc. Appeal Nos. 296 of 1986, 297 of 1986, 298 of 1986, 325 of 1986, 326 of 1986, 331 of 1986 and 332 of 1986, hence, the same, excepting the quantum, are being decided by this order.2. Misc. Appeal No. 296 of 1986 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.1986, passed in Claim Case No. 93 of 1981; Misc. Appeal No. 298 of 1986 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.1986, passed in Claim Case No. 89 of 1981; Misc. Appeal No. 325 of 1986 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.1986, passed in Claim Case No. 90 of 1981; Misc. Appeal No. 326 of 1986 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.1986, passed in Claim Case No. 95 of 1981; Misc. Appeal No. 330 of 1986 arises out of the judgment and award dated 12.8.1986, passed in Claim Case No. 1 of 14.8.1986, passed in Claim Case No. 3 of 1982; Misc. Appeal No. 297 of 1986 arises out of the judgment and award dated 1982; ...
Manmohan Vs. Gangabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ1213
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This revision petition, presented under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 14.5.1993 rendered by the Labour Court, thereby declining the prayer to permit the examination of the counsel as a witness in the case.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the proceeding has been filed by the non-applicants under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In this proceeding, a prayer was made to examine the counsel as a witness. This prayer was refused. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition.3. I have heard Mr. B.L. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.C. Verma, learned counsel for the non-applicants.4. As noticed, this is a revision petition preferred against the interlocutory order rendered by Labour Court in proceeding initiated under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, 'the Act').5. This petition is acarpous at least on two ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamimbanoo and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC648; [1994]79CompCas549(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This revision petition presented under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), is directed against the order dated September 29, 1993, passed by III Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas, in Claim Case No. 6 of 1990 thereby dismissing two applications moved under Order 13, Rule 10 and Order 16, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code by the applicant of this case.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that NA has filed the claim case for the award of compensation. In this case, the owner and driver of the vehicle insured with the applicant remained ex parte and did notcontest the claim. The applicant wanted to contest the same on the grounds available to the aforesaid persons in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The aforesaid provision contained as under :'170. Impleading insurer in certain cases.--Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that- (a) there...
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jaiprakash Narayan Tiwari an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ318MP; 1994(0)MPLJ571
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this petition filed by the employer against the order of the Industrial Court, the attempt is made to rack up the legal issue of the applicability of the bar of limitation under Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act'). In the opinion of this Court, the point of the applicability of the bar of limitation under Section 62 of the Act, as it stands today and on the relevant dale, is squarely covered by three Division Bench decisions of this Court, the first being in the case of Somsingh Onkar Singh v. M.P.S.R.T.C., Bhopal and Ors., 1980 MPLJ 211, followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dwarka Singh Thakur v. The Industrial Court, M.P. and Ors., 1989 M.P.S.L.R. 98 and the decision in the case of M.P.T.S.R.T. Corporation v. Meharban Singh and Ors., (1993-II-LLJ-234).2. The learned counsel appearing for the employer submits that the Division Bench decisions of this Court deserve reconsiderati...
Pramod Kumar Tiwari Vs. Hindustan Fertilizers Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ192MP; 1994(0)MPLJ337
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. The services of a Laboratory Attendant appointed to a Project were terminated upon cessation of work of that project. He has now filed the present writ petition challenging his termination.2. The petitioner Pramod Kumar Tiwari was appointed on a temporary post of Laboratory Attendant by Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (respondent herein) on Indo-British Fertilizer Education Project; vide order dated September 5, 1984 (Annexure P-3). The funds for this project were provided to Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited by British Government under Education Programme for Agricultural Development. The appointment order (Annexure P-3) stipulated inter alia that the appointee would be on probation for a period of 6 months, which would be extendable at the discretion of the management. The petitioner on completion of probation period, was confirmed on his post by order dated July 10, 1989 (Annexure P-5) with effect from April 8, 1985. It was expressly stated in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »