Madhya Pradesh Court January 1996 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.
Haribai W/O Bhaiyalal and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ267
R.P. Awasthy, J.1. It is an appeal against the finding of holding the accused appellants guilty for committing offences punishable under sections 302 and 307, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them each to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively. Jail sentences awarded to both of the accused appellants has been ordered to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case is that relations between Haribai and her husband, Bhaiyalal, were not cordial and therefore, Haribai was staying in her parents house, at village Sadwa. A Panchayat was thereafter convened and Bhaiyalal executed an agreement (Ex.P/1), that he would not ill-treat his wife, Haribai, and that Haribai would be brought by his uncle Mohania (PW/1), to the house of Bhaiyalal. In terms of the said agreement, Haribai was brought to the house of Bhaiyalal only about eight days earlier than 17-3-1985, which is the date of the present incident.3. According to Prosecution Bhaiyalal a...
Bhagwati Prasad Singhal Vs. State Government of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)MPLJ46
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. This petition has been preferred against a notification issued by the State Government, copy of this is Annexure P/1. This notification stands issued under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The number of persons who are to be appointed as notaries has been fixed at seventeen. It is this fixation of number as seventeen which has led to the filing of the present petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the State Government is not within its rights to fix the number at its own. According to him while doing so there must be material available to it. Earlier the number of notaries in the Civil District of Gwalior was fixed at fifteen. Vide Annexure P/1, this has been fixed at seventeen.3. Before noticing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statutory provisions be noticed. These are section 3 of the Act and Rule 7(3) of the Rules. These read as un...
Smt. Haribai and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2143
R.P. Awasthy, J.1. It is an appeal against the finding of holding the accused appellants guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 302 and 307, read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentencing them each to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively. Jail sentences awarded to both of the accused appellants have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case is that relations between Hari Bai and herhusband, Bhaiyalal, were not cordial and therefore, Hari Bai was staying in her parents house, at village Sadwa. A Panchayat was thereafter convened and Bhaiyalal executed an agreement (Ex-P/l), that he would not ill-treat his wife, Hari Bai, and that Hari Bai would be brought by his uncle Mohania (PW/1), to the house of Bhaiyalal. In terms of the said agreement, Hari Bai was brought to the house of Bhaiyalal only about eight days earlier than 17-3-85, which is the date of the present incident.3. According to Prosecution Bhaiyalal and Kallu Bai...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhupendra Kumar Patel and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(MP)458
ORDERBY THE COURT :This is a reference called by this Court on application made by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act from the Tribunal and the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinion of this Court :'Whether a partner is entitled to exemption under s. 80L of the IT Act in respect of interest earned by the firm on bank deposits held in its name ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessees/non-applicants are partners in M/s P. D. & Company, Raipur, which firm had deposits in the bank yielding interest income, which was assessed in the hands of the said firm and the share income of the aforesaid three partners including interest income was assessed in the hands of the said partners. The said partners had claimed deduction under s. 80L of the IT Act for the part of the interest income from the bank which was included in the share income from the firm, but the said claim was rejected by the ITO on the ground that the said partner...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. N. Oil Industries.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(MP)319
ORDERBY THE COURT :This is a reference called by this Court on application made by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act from the Tribunal and the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinion of this Court, which reads as under :'Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. vs . Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) and quashing the order of the ITO under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, rectifying the quantum of relief allowable under s. 80J of the Act for the assessment year in question ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The original assessments in this case were made under s. 143(3) on 5th Jan., 1972. On scrutiny of the order, the ITO found that a mistake has been crept in the assessment order in computing the deduction under s. 80J of the IT Act and allowing the same. Therefore, the ITO after issuing a show cause notice to the assessee...
Nikhata Afros and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997MP41; 1996(0)MPLJ1061
A.K. Mathur, Actg. C.J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') as ultra vires of the Constitution to the extent of authorising the State Government to fix the amount of the composition fees and to authorise any other officer subordinate to the permit granting authority for compounding the offence under Section 86 of the Act and also being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioners 1 to 5 hold a regular All India Tourist Permit in respect of their vehicle No. M. P. -- M. K. Q. 2644 and petitioners 6 to 10 are also holders of All India Tourist Permit for their vehicles. It is alleged that Tourist Vehicles are being checked up by subordinate officers of Transport and Police Departments and fine is recovered under threat of seizure of the vehicles on the spot notwithstanding the pleas that the vehicles are covered byAll India...
Jagdish Prasad Bhunjwa Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997MP184; 1997(1)MPLJ512
A.K. Mathur, Ag, C.J.1. All the aforesaid writ petitions involve common question of law; therefore, they are disposed of by this common Order.2. For convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in Jagdish Prasad Bhunjwa v. State of M.P. (WP 3141/95) are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition has challeged the validity of Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 and have also challenged the motion of no-confidence against the elected Sarpanch and Upsarpanch being unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.4. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are thus : The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch directly by the voters of Gram Panchayat-Arkandi, Tehsil-Maihar, District-Satna as provided under Section 17 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1994'). It is alleged that under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act, a Sarpan...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahavar Traders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR167(MP)
1. This is a reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court, which reads as under :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner ofIncome-tax wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the claim of the assessee under Sections 80HH and 80J ?'2. The assessee/non-applicant is a firm which derived income from purchase and sale of forest products and also from rice milling. The Commissioner of Income-tax, on verification of the income-tax record, came to the conclusion that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the following reasons ;(i) Allowance under Section 32A was wrongly allowed as the machinery of the value of Rs. 53,979 was second-hand machinery on which investment allowance was not allowa...
Nikhata Afros Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC340
A.K. Mathur, Ag. C.J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act) as ultra vires of the Constitution to the extent of authorising the State Government to fix the amount of the composition fees and to authorise any other officer subordinate to the permit granting authority for compounding the offence Under Section 86 of the Act and also being violative of Articles 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioners 1 to 5 hold a regular All India Tourist Permit in respect of their vehicle No. MP.-M.K.Q. 2644 and petitioners 6 to 10 are also holders of All India Tourist Permit for their vehicles. It is alleged that Tourist Vehicles are being checked up by subordinate officers of Transport and Police Departments and fine is recovered under threat of seizure of the vehicles on the spot notwithstanding the pleas that the vehicles are covered by All India Permit....
Ashokpal Daga (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(MP)235; [1996]220ITR452(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. On rejection of Reference Application No. 66/(Ind) of 1994 on September 21, 1994, the applicant-assessee has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), to direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer two out of the four proposed questions of law, as noted below, arising out of the order dated March 11, 1994, passed by the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 907/ (Ind) of 1992 for the assessment year 1989-90 :'(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and had any material to hold that the sum of Rs. 50,000 credited in the name of Shri Sanjay Talraja was unproved cash credit and the assessee's income from undisclosed sources and interest paid thereon is liable to be assessed as income ? (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and had any material to hold that the sum of Rs. 15,000 credited in the name of Smt. Gayatri Devi was unproved cash credit and the assessee's income from undisclosed sources and interest paid thereon is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »