Madhya Pradesh Court March 2002 Judgments
indore Education and Services Society and ors. Vs. Bank of India and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT434
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Question for consideration in these three writ petitions is whether the provision of Section 34(1) of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Recovery Act') over-rides Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987'), and matter, thus, cannot be referred by Debts Recovery Tribunal for recording compromise to Lok Adalat.2. In W.P. No. 661/2002 petitioners submit that the case is pending before the Tribunal; civil suit was filed by Bank of India/respondent No. 1 for recovery of loan amount alongwith interest which was decreed in ex parte on 9-2-1998. Petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. Same application was transferred to Tribunal and registered as M.A. No. 7/98.3. In W.P. No. 662/2002 suit was filed by Bank of India for recovery which suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur registered as O.A. No. 182/99.4. In W.P. No. 663/2002 again Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushal Kishore Biyani Vs. Union of India Through Ito
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(MP)552
ORDERS.L. Kochkar, J.This is an application filed by the applicant under section 482 or the Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of Criminal Case No. 10/1992 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore.2. The non-applicant Income Tax Department filed a criminal complaint on 14-2-1992, alleging that for the assessment year 1987-88 corresponding to the previous year ending 30-6-1987, the firm M/s Shrinath Drillers did not deduct TDS at 1 per cent. The applicant Kaushal Kishore was the acting partner of the firm. After the default was pointed out to the firm and its partner by the non-applicant-department, they deposited the amount of TDS from their own account and submitted that this was the first year of their business, they were not aware of the statutory requirement in this regard under the Income Tax Act.3. It appears that the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance only against Kaushal Kishore, the applicant, and framed the charge punishable...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhary Builders Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(MP)574
By the courtHeard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior advocate with Shri Milind Phadke for appellant on the question of admission.2. This appeal is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, against the order of Tribunal, Indore, passed on 30-8-2000. The appeal before the Tribunal was preferred at the instance of revenue, against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Indore. The Tribunal had formulated the following questions, which were required to be answered by it. The said are reproduced hereinbelow :(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the loss claimed by the assessee as business loss instead of speculation loss as determined by the assessing officer.(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,69,97,222 made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained investment made in ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lata Shah Vs. Nitin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT568; 2002(3)MPLJ352
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 482, Cr.PC against the order dated 3-11-2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 545/2001 passed by Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore arising out of judgment and finding dated 13-9-2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 2808/99, dismissing the revision of the applicant for want of prosecution on2-11-2001 and thereafter his application for hearing the revision after issuance of notice to other side on merits by impugned order. 2. The facts in narrow compass are that the applicant filed a complaint case before the Trial Court under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act against the non-applicant Nitesh alleging that the non-applicant issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 45,000/- (forty five thousand) on 16-4-99 but the same was dis- honoured for want of fund in the concerned Bank. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore registered the Criminal Case No. 2808/99 and after recording the...
Tag this Judgment!M.i.S.C. Karmachari Sangh (intuc) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1236]; (2002)IVLLJ233MP
S.S. Jha, J.1. Respondents have moved an application (LA. 1408/2002) for recalling and modification of the order dated January 21, 2002. This application is vehemently opposed by counsel for petitioner and it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that his application is not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Budhia Swain and Ors. v. Gopinath Deb and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2089 : 1999 (4) SCC 396. Attention was invited to para 8 of the judgment, wherein it is held that the power to recall the judgment will not be exercised when the ground for reopening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. Right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppel, or acquiescence. It is further held that any order can be recalled if (i) the proceedings culminating into the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Makhija Construction Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR8(MP)
1. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.2.The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, dated August 22, 2001, whereby the appeal of the Revenue has been rejected. The brief facts material for deciding the said case, are mentioned hereinbelow.3. The respondent-assessee-firm raised loans from six parties amounting to Rs. 2,15,000. These loans were not through account-payee cheques but were only through crossed cheques. Penalty proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Indore. In response to the show-cause notice issued to the assessee, it was submitted by it that the six creditors were members of the same family. The family had two partnership firms, known as Gujarat Construction Company and the assessee, Makhija Construction Company, in which different family members were partners.4. On consideration of the submis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gom Industries Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR78(MP)
1. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for appellant, on the question of admission.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue, preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, passed on August 23, 2001.3. The brief facts material for deciding this appeal are mentioned herein below :The respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the addition of alleged undisclosed income on protective basis, amounting to Rs. 14,08,580. This undisclosed income was added in the income of the asses-see on account of search and seizure conducted in his premises on October 11, 1996, at Indore as well as at its Mumbai office.4. However, the Tribunal has recorded a finding in paras. 3 and 4 that the assessee had recorded this transaction in its books of account as was clear from the audited balance-sheet filed along with the compilation. It has also been recorded that all through the assessee was under a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Industries (i.) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR762(MP)
1. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.2. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated August 24, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore.2. Learned counsel contended that two questions would be involved in this appeal, namely : whether investment allowance of Rs. 64,087 was properly allowed by the Assessing Officer towards machinery, which was installed during the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1988, and whether deletion of amount by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made by the Assessing Officer on account of notional interest amounting to Rs. 16,87,500 was properly allowed ?3. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record we find no merit and substance in this appeal.4. The Tribunal had taken into consideration that it cannot be disputed that installation of plant and machinery was completed by the assessee on March 31, 1988...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Makhija Construction
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(MP)145
By the CourtHeard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for appellant on the question of admission.Revenue has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of Tribunal, Indore, dated 22-8-2001, whereby appeal of revenue has been rejected. Brief facts material for deciding the said case, are mentioned herinbelow.2. Respondent-assessee firm raised loan from six parties amounting to Rs. 2,15,000. These loans were not through account payee cheques but were only through crossed cheques. Penalty proceedings were initiated by Deputy Commissioner Indore. In response to the show-cause notice issued to assessee, it was submitted by it that six creditors were members of the same family. The family had two partnership firms, known as Gujarat Construction Company and assessee M/s Makhija Construction Company, in which different family members were partners.On consideration of the submissions so advanced Deputy Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,15,000 on assess...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Premier Industries (i) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN1106(MP)
ORDERHeard Shri R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 24-8-2001 passed by the Tribunal, Indore.2. The learned counsel contended that two questions would be involved in this appeal, namely, whether investment allowance of Rs. 64,087 was properly allowed by the assessing officer towards machinery, which was installed during the period 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988 and whether deletion of amount by the Commissioner (Appeals) made by the assessing officer on account of notional interest amounting to Rs. 16,87,500 was properly allowed ?After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record we find no merit and substance in this appeal.3. The Tribunal had taken into consideration that it cannot be disputed that installation of plant and machinery was completed by the assessee on 31-3-1988. It has also...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »