Madhya Pradesh Court October 2004 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.
Sunil Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT24; 2005(1)MPLJ180
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in this case :--'7.1 That, to issue writ, direction or order cancelling the reservation of wards as contained in Annexure P-1.7.1 That, to issue writ, direction or order to the respondent No. 2 to reserve wards afresh according to the provisions of the Act and rules.7.2 That, grant any other suitable relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case alongwith cost.'2. The case of petitioner is that in the ensuing election for Municipal Corporation, Khandwa, respondent No. 1 has reserved Ward No. 3 Surajkund Ward, Ward No. 8 Sant Raidas Ward, Ward No. 24 Lakkad Bazar Ward, Ward No. 31 Singhad Talai Ward, Ward No. 40 Jawaharganj Ward and Ward No. 42 Mahatma Gandhi Ward for Scheduled Caste persons, while in the election of 1994, five wards were reserved namely : Ward No. 7 Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Ward No. 3 Sant Raidas Ward, Ward No. 26 Sanjay Gandhi Ward, Ward No. 31 Singhad Talai Ward and W...
Sardar Machhi Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)633; [2005]278ITR247(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeals being ITA Nos. 73, 75, 76 and 78 of 1999 because all these appeals involve identical point and secondly, they arise between the same parties.2. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act, against a common order dt. 15th Jan., 1999, passed by Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA Nos. 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168/Ind/1991.3. This appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission on 26th April, 2000, when the Division Bench of this Court passed following order :'26th April, 2000 :Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard. It is admitted on the question of law set out in the appeal memo. List for hearing along with other cognate matters.(R.D. Vyas, J.) (Shambhoo Singh, J.)'4. Heard Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel with Ku. Mandlik for the Revenue.5. In substance, the question arose before...
Rajbahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT453
ORDERAjit Singh, J. 1. By this petition, the delinquent employee has prayed for quashing of orders (Annexures A-14 and A-16) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority respectively whereby he has been inflicted with a penalty of dismissal from service.2. The petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). He was charge-sheeted. Six charges were levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer in his report found charge Nos. 1,2, 3,4 and 6 fully proved and charge No. 5 partially proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, respondent No. 3, accepted the report of the enquiry officer and passed the order of punishment as mentioned above. The order of Disciplinary Authority is Annexure A-14. The Appellate Authority, respondent No. 2, also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 20-1-1997 (Annexure A-16).3. Shri Ashish Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order (Annexure A-16), passed by the ...
S. Vayyapuri Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: [2005]141STC229(MP)
ORDER1. This order shall also govern disposal of connected Appeal No. 131 of 2004, as the points involved in both the appeals are identical and learned single Judge, has disposed of other appeal also on the strength of an order, passed by him on January 27, 2004 in identical writ petitions.2. Factual matrix are as under :Appellant No. 1 is a transporter and appellant No. 2 was the driver of a truck at the relevant point of time. 140 bags of supari (betel-nut) were loaded in the truck belonging to appellant No. 1 driven by appellant No. 2, at Chaliseri (Kerala), and despatched by owner of the goods M/s. Mustafa Traders, Chaliseri (Kerala) to be delivered to M/s. Fazil Enterprises, Indore.3. According to the appellants consignee has been working as commission agent of the consignor. The challan for commission sale, issued by Mustafa Traders dated May 29, 2002, shows that betel-nut new (supari) second quality, weighing 90 quintals was being transported in the said truck. The rate shown wa...
Sardar Machhi Singh Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN8(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeals being ITA Nos. 73, 75, 76 and 78 of 1999 because all these appeals involve identical point and secondly, they arise between the same parties.2. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, against a common order dated 15-1-1999, passed by Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA Nos. 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168/Ind/1991.3. This appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission on 26-4-2000, when the Division Bench of this court passed following order :'26-4-2000 :Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard. It is admitted on the question of law set out in the appeal memo. List for hearing along with other cognate matters.(R.D. Vyas, J.)(Shambhoo Singh, J.)'4. Heard Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel with Ku. Mandlik for the revenue.5. In substance, the question arose before the assessing...
Smt. Dharma Bai Thakur and ors. Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Dixit and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT417; 2005(1)MPLJ129
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. Arguments heard.2. This petition under Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC, is for review of order dated 30-7-2004, passed by this Court in C.R. No. 1256/03 [2004(4) M.P.H.T. 49].In C.R. No. 1256/2003, the following order was passed :--'This revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the order dated 28-10-2003, passed by V ADJ, Jabalpur in C.A. No. 60-A/2003, affirming the order dated 30-4-2003, passed by RCA, Jabalpur in Case No. 19-A/90 (1)/2002.2. Respondents are tenants of the petitioners in the suit house. On 24-9-2002, they filed application before the RCA seeking fixation of standard rent under Sections 7, 10 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The application aforesaid has been resisted by the petitioners stating inter alia that the contractual rent of the suit house is Rs. 195/- p.m. and in any case the standard rent should be fixed under Section 10 (4). The RCA vide order dated 30-4-2003 held that the fixation of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(MP)644; [2005]272ITR583(MP)
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The respondent (assessee) claimed that it installed and put to use a bio-gas plant at the cost of Rs. 90,41,057 in May 1992. In the return for the assessment year 1993-94, it claimed depreciaiton. The Income-tax Officer while passing the order of assessment dated February 29, 1996, restricted the depreciation to 50 per cent, on the ground that the bio-gas plant was commissioned and put to use for less than 180 days, that is only from October 9, 1992. the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated August 13, 1996, upheld the disallowance of depreciation of 50 per cent, of bio-gas plant. For this purpose, the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority relied on the statement said to have been made by the representative of the assessee on February 28, 1996, at the time of hearing that the bio-gas plant was commissioned on October 9, 1992, and was put to use from that date. A further appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed by the Income-tax Appe...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Monika Processing Plant
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC139(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this case shall govern disposal of other connected case being M.C.C. No. 571 of 1998 because both these cases involve same point and secondly both these cases arise between the same parties.2. This is a sales tax reference made Under Section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) at the instance of Revenue (Commissioner of Sales Tax) to this Court in Reference Case No. 38-PBR/91 and 39-PBR/91 which arise out of an order dated November 26, 1990 passed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) in Appeal Nos. 98 and 99/111/1987 to answer following question of law arising out of the decision rendered by Board/Tribunal in aforementioned two appeals:Whether, under the facts of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the transaction of supply, erection, commissioning and trial production undertaken by the dealer was a composite works contract but not a sale as chattel as a chattel?3. In order to appr...
Cit Vs. Vindhyachal Distilleries (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR582(MP)
R.V. Raveendran C.J.The respondent (assessee) claimed that it installed and put to use a bio-gas plant at the cost of Rs. 90,41,057 in May 1992. In the return for the assessment year 1993-94, it claimed depreciaiton. The Income Tax Officer while passing the order of assessment dated 29-2-1996, restricted the depreciation to 50 per cent on the ground that the bio-gas plant was commissioned and put to use for less than 180 days, that is only from 9-10-1992. the CIT (A) by his order dated 13-8-1996, upheld the disallowance of depreciation of 50 per cent. of biogas plant. For this purpose, the assessing officer and the appellate authority relied on the statement said to have been made by the representative of the assessee on 28-2-1996, at the time of hearing that the bio-gas plant was commissioned on 9-10-1992, and was put to use from that date. A further appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, by order dated 4-10-2002, with a direct...
Commissioner of Commercial Tax Vs. Modern Agency
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC1(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this reference shall govern disposal of other connected reference being M.C.C. No. 567 of 1998, because both these references arise between the same parties and involve common questions of law to be answered by this Court.2. This is a sales tax reference made at the instance of Revenue, i.e., Commissioner of Sales Tax (now referred to as Commissioner of Commercial Tax) Under Section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) and replaced by the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 by the Board of Revenue in reference case Nos. 39 and 40-1/96, dated March 14, 1998 which arises out of an order dated April 23, 1996, passed by Board in Appeal No. 7-2/S/525/ 94 and 7-2/S/191/95 to answer following question of law said to arise out of the aforesaid appellate orders passed by Board:Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the A Tribunal was justified in holding that Fevicol MR and Fevicryl acrylic colours are items of s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »