Madhya Pradesh Court June 1999 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panama Chemical Works
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(MP)18; [2000]245ITR684(MP)
1. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question stated to be question of law for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the claim of the assessee under Section 80I is justified even if he had not filed the audit report in Form No. 10CCB along with a return of income, being basic condition ?'2. It appears that the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80I which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer but was later allowed by both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal after it was found that the assessee had filed the audit report dated October 20, 1989, in Form No. 10CCB during the assessment proceedings.3. The Revenue sought reference of this on the plea that the requirement under the relevant section was that the assessee should have filed the aud...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Gurubaxani Vs. Smt. Usha Gurubaxani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC406
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against judgment and order dated 12.9.1997 passed by learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 608 of 1996, Lalit Gurubaxani v. Smt. Usha Gurubaxani, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the First Appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed by the Trial Court.2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place at Satna according to Hindu rites. The wife (respondent) stayed at her matrimonial home at Satna for about three months. It is alleged that the behaviour of the husband and his family members was not very cordial with her. It is alleged that she was neglected by the members of the husband's family and was not allowed to sit alongwith other family members of the husband. It is alleged that her husband expressed his intention to marry one Ku. Hemlata and also expressed ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Rathore Vs. Sunderlal (Dead) Through L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT119
1. This appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-2-93 by Second Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/87 affirming the judgment and decree dated 10-11-87 by Fourth Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 60-A/86 decreeing the suit under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.2. The original plaintiff Sunderlal, the predecessor of present respondents filed a suit for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter mentioned as the 'Act' for short) for eviction of the defendant/appellant from the suit premises, bearing Municipal house No. 15/552 situate at Malviya Road, Raipur. It was alleged that the house was let out by the original plaintiff Sunderlal to the defendant/appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 210/-. The defendant did not pay rent from 1-4-85 to 30-9-86. Hence, a demand-cum-quit notice dated 16-8-86 demanding the arrears and terminat...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Oil Mills Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR591]; (2000)IILLJ407MP
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged notice of demand issued under Section 146 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 asking the petitioner for depositing the amount as mentioned in the notice which related to the provident fund of the employees of the petitioner. The petition was admitted and this Court passed the order that on petitioner's furnishing bank guarantee within a period of one month for the amount due, further recovery proceedings shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court. There is order of the Court dated January 4, 1999 to the following effect:'No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Dismissed for want of prosecution. Judge' This order was not signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Subsequently, on January 6, 1999 order was passed regarding issuing direction to the respondent for obtaining the original records of the proceedings for awarding damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Ac...
Tag this Judgment!P.P.L. Factory Vs. Mangi Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1193
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The appellant P.P.L. Factory, Raukhedi, Tah. Sanwer, District Indore (hereinafter referred to as P.P.L. Factory for convenience) is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the award passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in Case No. 65/WC-NCF/93 dated 5.12.1997, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 47,142 with penalty of Rs. 23,571 to the respondent with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum along with the cost of litigation Rs. 200.2. On 12.3.92 at about 3.30 p.m., there was ammonia gas leakage in P.P.L. Factory. The respondent alleged in the claim petition that he was working in the said factory at that time as workman employed by P.P.L. Factory. He alleged that on account of said leakage of ammonia gas his eyes and lungs were damaged with the result that he became blind by left eye and he was unable to see the things properly by right eye. According to the case of the respondent, after the said acci...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Balwant Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT253
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the Order dated 16-11-95 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (henceforth the Tribunal) in Claim case No. 51/95. The Tribunal by the impugned order has declined to hold that the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth the Act) was barred by time and consequently it has held that there was no question of condoning the delay in filing the application.2. The facts of this case giving rise to this revision petition may be stated in short. The non-applicant No. 1 filed the application for compensation against the Non-applicant No. 3, the owner, the Non-applicant No. 2, the driver and the application claiming compensation for the death of Smt. Tulsibai on 20-9-91 under Section 166 of the Act. The application was filed on 8-3-1995, after a period of 3 years, 5 months and 16 days. At the time of filing of the application, Section 166(3) of...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ246
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 16.11.95 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (henceforth 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 51 of 1995. The Tribunal by the impugned order has declined to hold that the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') was barred by time and consequently it has held that there was no question of condoning the delay in filing the application.2. The facts of this case giving rise to this revision petition may be stated in short. The non-applicant No. 1 filed the application for compensation against the non-applicant No. 3, the owner, the non-applicant No. 2, the driver claiming compensation for the death of Tulsibai on 20.9.1991 under Section 166 of the Act. The application was filed on 8.3.95, after a period of 3 years, 5 months and 16 days. At the time of filing of the application, Section 166(3) of the Act stood delete...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Commissioner Vs. Anupchand and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: [1999]239ITR466(MP)
A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue and the following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-firm is entitled to depreciation on trucks at 40 per cent. which are used in the assessee's own business ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking as contemplated under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act for claiming investment allowance under Section 32A(1) of the Act? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circum...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Shivhare Vs. Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ247
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dismissing his Writ Petition the petitioner has now come up in Letters Patent Appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the same and further seeking a direction requiring the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, the respondent No. 1, to renew the licence No. 19/1996-97 in Form FL-III for dealing in foreign liquor granted in his favour.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner claims to be a proprietor of Sangam Hotel and Restaurant, situate at Tansen Road, Gwalior, which has been established by him in a rented premises. He had applied for the licence in Fl-III to deal in foreign liquor which had been initially granted for the period from 1st March, 1997 and was renewed for the period 1-4-1997 to 31- 3-1998. Later on, it was further renewed for a perio...
Tag this Judgment!Mukul Vs. State Bank of India and 2 ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT216
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 1st June, 1983 (Annexure-P/14), passed by the disciplinary authority, whereby, as a measure of punishment after the departmental enquiry, petitioner has been removed from the service of the respondent Bank. Petitioner further prays for quashing of the appellate order dated 28-8-1985 (Annexure P/3), whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority. It is relevant here to state that later on, by order dated 28th September, 1985 (Annex. P/4) the appellate authority has substituted the words 'dismissed from the Bank's service' to that of 'removed from the Bank's service'.2. Facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as officer in the Junior Management Grade of the respondent State Bank of India, hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »