Madhya Pradesh Court August 1999 Judgments
State Textile Corporation Vs. Sanyukt Sangharsh Samiti and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR416]; (2000)IILLJ73MP
A.K. Gohil, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated March 22, 1999 passed by the Labour Judge, Ratlam in Case No. 12/PW Act/98/Civil and also order of Review dated May 18, 1999 in Case No. 1/PW Act/99/Review, on the ground that the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is illegal and without jurisdiction on the following grounds:(i) As per agreement dated October 20, 1990, the petitioner is merely to run a Sajjan Mills arid, therefore, the petitioner Company is not an employer as defined under Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and in view of the above, the provisions of Payment of Wages Act are not applicable. Therefore, the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is illegal and without jurisdiction.(ii) Under Sections 22(1) and 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, no such prior approval was sought by Respondents No. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Board of Secondary Education and Teachers' Training and Ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ263MP
C.K. Prasad, J.1. All these writ petitions have been directed to be heard together. In all the writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for quashing of the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby it has held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act apply to the petitioners and their employees are entitled to payment of gratuity under the said Act.2. Although various points have been raised in the writ petitions, but at the time of hearing Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioners raises only one point i.e. the petitioners-Society being registered as Society under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973 and not under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1959, the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act is not attracted. Hence, petitioners are not liable to make payment of the gratuity amount, nor the respondents are entitled to the same.3. In view of the aforesaid submission, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj C. Patel and Company Vs. General Manager, District Industries C ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: [2000]120STC73(MP)
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari and also writ of mandamus for grant of eligibility certificate for exemption from payment of sales tax under the State and Central Sales Tax Act for the period of seven years from the date of commencement of commercial production dated April 30, 1988 as prescribed in the notification dated October 16, 1986.2. In short, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacture and sale of stone metal (gitti) manufactured from stone boulders. The petitioner holds stone quarries on lease for extracting stone boulders which are crushed into the crusher to manufacture 'gitti' which are used for various purposes in building constructions.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has set up a new industrial unit of Pipaldehla, Deorari, District Jhabua, for the manufacture of stone metal and has insta...
Tag this Judgment!Perfect Industrial Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Offi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ632
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26-8-1998 (Annexure P-9) of the respondent No. 1 Commercial Tax Officer and the revisional order dated 16-9-1998 of the respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Jabalpur.2. The petitioner No. 1 'Perfect Industrial Agencies Private Limited' is a company having its Head Office at Bombay and a branch office at Jabalpur. It has been appointed as an agent of Ashok Leyland Limited, Madras for sale of its vehicles in Jabalpur. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sangeeta Khera is one of its directors. The respondent No. 1 is seeking to recover the sales-tax dues of Rs. 3,93,984/- of 'Perfect Agencies Private Limited' from the petitioner Company. He has sent a letter to the respondent No. 3, the bank in which the petitioner No. 1 has its account to pay this amount. The petitioners challenged it by filing Writ Petition No. 2306 of 1998 in which by order dated 24-6-1998 t...
Tag this Judgment!itarsi Oils and Flours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: [2001]250ITR686(MP)
A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was liable to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The brief facts for disposal of this reference are as under ; The assessee-company filed a return on December 29, 1989, showing an income of Rs. 62,610 which was computed under Section 115J of the Act. The assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. Later it came to the notice of the authorities that there has been underassessment of the income inasmuch as it related to the depreciation aspect. In the computation of the income, depreciation had been claimed as provided under Section 32 of the Act, whereas while computing the income unde...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpavati Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: 1999(66)ECC550; 1999(114)ELT393(MP); 2000(1)MPLJ306
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Income Tax Authorities raided petitioners residential and business premises on 21-5-1988 and seized 55 gold coins and pendants with foreign markings and put it for safe custody in State Bank of India (respondent No. 3). Assessee (Petitioner No. 2) offered to disclose the value of the seized property as undisclosed income and paid the tax liability of Rs. 14 lakh or so to secure release of the seized gold. He applied for its release on 8-11-1990 and the Commissioner ordered it on 7-9-1992 subject to certain conditions.2. It appears that no following action was taken by petitioners in the matter till they again applied to Asstt. Commissioner on 9-6-1993 for the release of the gold and for its handover to Bank Branch Manager on the plea that they wanted to subscribe it for gold-bonds under the Gold Bonds Scheme. The gold was consequently ordered to be released and a Panchnama executed on 14-6-1993 which was signed by petitioner No. 2 also. But before petitioners could...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpavati and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(MP)391
B.A. Khan, J.IT authorities raided petitioners' residential and business premises on 21-5-1988, and seized 55 gold coins and pendants with foreign markings and put it for safe custody in, State Bank of India (respondent No. 3), Assessee (Petitioner No. 2) offered to disclose the value of the seized property as undisclosed income and paid the tax liability of Rs. 14 lakhs or so to secure release of the seized gold. He applied for the release on 8-11-1990, and the Commissioner ordered it on 7-9-1992, subject to certain conditions.2. It appears that no follow up action was taken by petitioners in the matter till they again applied to Asstt. Commissioner on 9-6-1993, for the release of the gold and for its hand over to bank branch manager on the plea that they wanted to subscribe it for gold bonds under the gold bonds Scheme. The gold was consequently ordered to be released and a Panchnama executed on 10-6-1993, which was signed by petitioner No. 2 also. But before petitioners could take i...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP137
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner, claiming to be a constitutionalist and a public spirited person, has filed this petition in public interest for quashing grant and payment of pension to Members of Parliament. He has also challenged legislative competence of the Parliament to enact Section 8A of The Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, being ultra vires Articles 14, 21 and 106 of the Constitution and has prayed for its quashment.2. Petitioner's short case is that Constitution did not provide for grant and payment of pension to MPs as was evident from the provisions of Article 106 of the Constitution which contemplated only payment of salaries and allowances to such members, to be determined by Parliament. Therefore, Parliament was competent only to enact a legislation, related to salary and allowances of the Members of Parliament and 'not the pension' because wherever Constitution makers had intended to provide for such grant and payment of pension. It was so specif...
Tag this Judgment!Chhamadhar Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP126; 1999(2)MPLJ694
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25-10-1996 (Annexure P-1) of the respondent No. 2 by which he has directed the respondent No. 3 to seize the timber trees on the land belonging to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 20 area 7.16 acres in village Kohantya, Tehsll Begamganj, District Raisen. He made an application under Section 241 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) to respondent No. 2 Collector, Raisen for permission to cut 492 timber trees standing on this land. This application was submitted by him in the prescribed form A on 24-10-1995. The Collector called the report of the respondent No. 3 Divisional Forest Officer and the S.D.O. (Civil). They submitted their reports on 13-4-1996. But no order was passed by the Collector. The petitioner informed the Collector by the letter dated 8-7-1996 that he has started cutting trees from tha...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chandra @ Mahesh Kumar Goyal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT232; 2000(3)MPLJ417
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J.2. Heard learned counsel of the applicant and the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for State. 3. This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been marked on the top of the title page as 2nd application while the first was allowed by me under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 1691/99 vide order dated 29-7-99. In the circumstances, this being the first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot be marked as 2nd application so as to create impression that it is to be heard by the same Judge who allowed an earlier application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.. When a querry was raised on behalf of this Court, the learned Counsel of the applicant raised a further point of law by stating that there is no difference between Sections 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. in so far as marking he application as 2nd in turn which is to be heard by the same Judge. This being against the established practice of this Court, the learned Advocate for applicant was further directed to place the entire law o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »