Madhya Pradesh Court November 2002 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.
Shree Amarlal Kirana Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(MP)355; [2003]259ITR572(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated February 26, 1999 (annexure P-8), and reiterated by way of intimation by a subsequent order, dated December 7, 2001 (annexure P-26), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (intimated on his behalf by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax) to the petitioner. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ, which lies in a narrow compass, a few relevant facts need mention.2. The petitioner is an assessee, as defined under Section 2(7) of the Income-tax Act,' 1961, so too a 'person' as defined under Section 87(k) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, as introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. For the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner filed its return on March 28, 1995. The Assessing Officer by order dated March 28, 1995, made an assessment and determined the tax liability as also im...
Raghunath Prasad Mohanlal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(MP)51; [2003]259ITR663(MP); 2003(1)MPLJ169
S.K. Kochar, J.1. This revision petition, has been filed by the applicants against the judgment dated April 6, 1994, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1994 by 7th Additional Sessiosn Judge, Indore, arising out of order dated August 19, 1994, passed in Criminal Case No. 23 of 1986 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Indore, thereby convicting the applicants of the offence punishable under Sections 276C, 277/278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and sentencing applicant No. 1 to fine of Rs. 200 and applicants Nos. 2 to 4 to rigorous imprisonemnt for three months each with fine of Rs. 200 on each count.2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded before the trial court was that applicant No. 1, through applicant No. 2, Mohanlal, had submitted a return of income for the assessment year 1981-82, on September 20, 1983, showing taxable income of Rs. 47,000. During the search by the Sales Tax Department, in the premises of the applicants, some lo...
Malav Cultures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Somyak Real Estate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT14
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Heard. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator as per the terms and conditions of the arbitral agreement. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant in the petition is that the petitioner is the owner of Plot Nos. 87, 88 & 89 situated at Anoop Nagar, Indore. On 28-1-1997, parties entered into an agreement for the development of the land, i.e., for construction of a multi-storied building on plot Nos. 88 and 89 and a house on plot No. 87. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the owner was entitled to 40 percent of the constructed built-up area of the portions of the building which was to be constructed by the respondent on plot Nos. 88 and 89 and the respondent was entitled to the remaining 60 percent. It was also agreed by the parties that the house may be constructed on plot No. 87 by the respondent at his own cost and which will be c...
Smt. Moti Bai and ors. Vs. Smt. Kapoor Chand @ Smt. Jamna Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1656; 2003(1)MPHT188
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the claimants against order dated 3-3-2000 of the 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in execution proceedings in Claim Case No. 39 of 1981 by which it has been held that the application for execution of the award dated 3-8-1985 is barred by limitation.2. The application for execution of the award has been filed on 5-9-1997. According to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 limitation period is 12 years for the execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court. The limitation is to be reckoned from the date of the decree or the date of theorder. In this case the award was passed on 3-8-1985 and, therefore, there has been delay of 35 days in filing the application for enforcement of the award.3. The award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is enforceable by it. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Sarmamiya Bai v. M.P. Rajya Parivahan Nigam, AIR 1990 MP 306, that the claims Tribunal possesses...
Brijmohan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT165
ORDERRajeev Gupta, J. 1. Appellant Brijmohan stands convicted under Section 302, IPC with sentence of imprisonment for life, vide impugned judgment dated 23-10-90 passed by Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in S.T. No. 90/90.2. Appellant Brijmohan has been found guilty of causing death of his real elder brother Harishankar, by causing injuries on him by means of an axe in the noon of 1-1-90.3. Appellant's conviction is founded on the solitary eye-witness account of Ramvilas (P.W. 2), whose evidence was found corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. V.K. Jain (P.W. 4).4. Shri Datt, the learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in relying upon the solitary eye-witness account of Ramvilas (P.W. 2), whose evidence suffers from serious infirmities. The learned Counsel in the alternative placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court, in the case of Puttan alias Ellappan v. State of T.N., reported in 2000 SCC (Cr.) 1504, submitted that even if appell...
Moti Bai and ors. Vs. Kapoor Chand @ Jamna Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: II(2005)ACC566
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the claimants against order dated 3rd March, 2000 of the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in execution proceedings in Claim Case No. 39 of 1981 by which it has been held that the application for execution of the award dated 3rd August, 1985 is barred by limitation.2. The application for execution of the award has been filed on 5th September, 1997. According to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation period of 12 years for the execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court. The limitation is to be reckoned from the date of the decree or the date of the order. In this case the award was passed on 3rd August, 1985 and, therefore, there has been delay of 35 days in filing the application for enforcement of the award.3. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is enforceable by it. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam : AIR1990MP30...
Capital Roadways and Finance Private Ltd. Vs. State Transport Appellat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC598; 2003(1)MPLJ571
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2001 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 1755 of 2001 of this Court the petitioner-appellant has filed this letters patent appeal praying for renewal of Inter-State permit for the route of Itarsi to Nagpur under reciprocal agreement.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was having original permit Nos. 11/1951 and 143/1964 for the route in question. On 30.12.1992 both the permits were amalgamated into a single permit No. 11/1951. There was an Inter-State agreement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra State in respect of route in question. The original Inter-State agreement expected on 31st March, 1967 which was revised from time to time and was replaced by Inter-State agreement published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 19th July, 1974. After coming into force of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the permit of the petitioner was last renewed on 14th November, 1995 for a period of five years ...
Hind Syntex Ltd. Vs. Dewas Textile Mills
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas51(MP); [2004(101)FLR554]; [2003]42SCL889(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a company petition filed by petitioner under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, seeking winding up of the respondent-company essentially on the ground covered under Section 433(e) of Companies Act.2. The respondent is a company having its manufacturing Unit at Dewas. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of suiting and shirtings. In the course of its manufacturing activities, the respondent-company claimed to have purchased certain yarn from the petitioner who is engaged in the business of manufacture of yarn needed for the manufacture of suiting/shirting, pursuant to contracts entered into between the parties on 18-4-1984 to 26-3-1985, valuing Rs. 6,11,715.65 paise. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent was to make the payment against Hundies which they failed to retire. It is this action of the respondents which gave rise to serve a demand notice for paying a sum of Rs. 6,11,715.65 paise by the petitioner to respondent. It is ...
Shrinath Bearing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhar Cement Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas80(MP); [2004]50SCL221(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case. I find no case to entertain this company petition and hence, it merits dismissal.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent-company against whom this company petition is filed for its winding up is declared a sick company under the provisions of the SICA by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. It is also not in dispute that in terms of an order passed by the BIFR, the respondent-company is ordered to be wound up and reference to that effect is now to be made to this court under the SICA for winding up of the company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. It is also not in dispute that the said order of the BIFR has not yet been given effect to because it is presently sub-judice in appeal filed by the company before AAIFR.3. It is in the aforesaid background which emerges out of the record, the question arises as to what is the fate of this company...
Vikram Cement Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: [2004]138STC580(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The challenge in this petition is essentially to reassessment notices issued by the Assessing Authorities for various periods from 1991-92 to 1994-95 under the provisions of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. They were challenged in revision before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax but were dismissed by the impugned order giving rise to challenge in this petition.2. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri C.R. Pancholia.3. The only point on which these reassessment notices issued under Section 19(1) of the M.P.G.S.T. Act, 1958 are assailed is that impugned notice does not contain reasons as to why and on what basis or/and cause the reassessment is considered necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 19 ibid, contended that Section contemplates issuance of notices only when there exists a ground and that too those ground which are specified in the section. Learned counsel contends that since in the impugned sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »