Madhya Pradesh Court July 2001 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.
Sanghi Organics and Phytochem (P.) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN590(MP)
Sapre, J.This appeal is filed by an assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order dated 9-11-1998, passed by the Tribunal, Indore, in IT Appeal No. 49 (Ind.) of 1995 (assessment year 1990-91) (Annexure D). This court admitted this appeal on following substantial questions of law:'1. Whether the word loss as appearing in section 205(1), first proviso, clause (b) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with section 115 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 means including depreciation ?2. Whether the word loss used in section 115J(1)(a) Explanation 4 of Income Tax Act and clause (b) of the first proviso to section 205(1) of the Companies Act does not include depreciation?2. Heard Shri S.S. Samvatsar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents.3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the impugned order in the light of cases cited at the bar by the learned co...
Rewa Gases Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT318(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Though this writ petition was listed for urgent hearing on the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties it is finally heard. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. It is the stand in the writ petition that the petitioner was allowed to get the refund of Rs. 2,93,339.87P by order dated 28-8-92 but the interest was not paid on the aforesaid sum. 3. A return has been filed by the Department indicating that earlier there was no provision for grant of interest, and later on said provision has been incorporated. 4. Having heard Mrs. Seema Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Nair, learned Counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered view that when there has been delay in refund of amount the as-sessee is entitled to the interest on the sum for the simple reason that the department could not have withheld the amount and advance a plea that the assessee is not entitled to interest. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitione...
Avdesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT474
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dismissing its writ petition directed against the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer cancelling the registration granted to the petitioner/appellant under the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 and the Central Sales Tax Act which was affirmed in revision, the petitioner/appellant has now come up in Letters Patent Appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the respondent-authorities.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate and have carefully perused the record.3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged various grounds in support of this appeal but considering the facts and circumstances brought on record, we are of the opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on a short ground.4. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that the provisions contained in Section 22(9) of the Ma...
Rameshprasad and Others Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT141; 2002(2)MPLJ174
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 21-9-1989 at the time of admission of this appeal:--(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court ? (2) Whether the property which was given for the maintenance only to the two widows will confer any title or ownership to them 2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that Ganesh Prasad died long back in the year 1920 leaving behind his two widows Ganeshi Bai and Bhagwatibai and two sons-- Jagannath through the first wife and Suddiram through the second wife. Suddiram also died in the year 1925 and the name of his widow is also Bhagwatibai. She is defendant in the suit. By an award dated 23-11-1927 the two Bhagwatibais were given land Khasra No. 69 area 7.32 acres of village Piparia for maintenance during their life-time. Bhagwatibai, widow of Ganesh...
Jugroo and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1050; 2002(1)MPHT458; 2002(2)MPLJ267
C.K. Prasad, J. 1. Altogether, 43 persons were put on trial. Out of them, appellants have been held guilty of offence under Sections 302/149, 324/149, 436/149, 452 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, 2 years, 5 years, 3 years and 2 years respectively by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No. 41/84 by judgment dated 2-1-1989. Aggrieved by the same, appellants have preferred this appeal.2. According to the prosecution, on 17-3-1984 villagers were invited to the residence of accused Sashikant (since acquitted), the Sarpanch of the village for Fag i.e. singing holi songs on the Dhuredi day, which is celebrated on the following day of Holi. In the said celebration, members of the Chamar caste i.e. a Scheduled Caste community, also participated. After the Fag was over, members of all the communities went to the public temple situated in the midst of the village to sing Fag and after 2-3 songs, the Pujari of the temple ...
Smt. Kasturi Bai and Others Vs. Amolak Chand and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT242; 2001(3)MPLJ64
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J.1. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 brought a suit for eviction of a shop against the firm Lalchand Ashok Kumar Jain. During pendency of the suit, one of the partner of the firm Lalchand died. However, his other legal representatives were not brought on record on the ground that one of the partner Ashok Kumar is already on record. Subsequently, other legal representatives of Lalchand moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading them as a party. This application was rejected vide impugned order by the Trial Court on the ground that under Order 30 Rule 4 of CPC, if one of the partner is already on record, there is no necessity to bring other legal representatives of deceased partner on record.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they can be made party under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 30 of CPC, which provides that nothing in sub-rule (1), shall limit or otherwise affect any right which the legal representatives of the decease...
Smt. Anjali Lahiri Hariya Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC518; 2001(4)MPHT101; 2001(3)MPLJ218
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The petitioner who happens to be the wife of the detenu Lahiri Hariya is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Revenue Finance Department dated 14-11-2000 whereby by virtue of provisions of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to for convenience as 'COFEPOSA Act'). Her husband Lahiri Hariya s/o Vasant Hariya r/o 23, Rajesh Nagar, Indore, has been detained. The petitioner mainly attacked the said order on following grounds:--(1) The order of detention has been passed after considerable delay. (2) All necessary and relevant documents have not been furnished to the detenu and it prevented the detenu from filing effective representation and that infringed his fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (3) Though it was not demanded, it was the duty of the detaining...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›