Madhya Pradesh Court February 2004 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udhoji Shri Krishandas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)26; [2004]268ITR244(MP); 2004(1)MPHT438; 2004(1)MPLJ589
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.:1. The following two questions have been referred by the Division Bench for adjudication before the Larger Bench :--'(1) In view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra), whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that Assessee was entitled to interest under Sections 214 and 244(1-A) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the A.Ys. 1972-73 to 1976-77 ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessce was entitled to the benefit of interest under Section 244(1-A) on refunds in respect of any amount of tax including self assessment tax paid or given credit in assessment completed after 31-3-1975?'2. The facts which are essential to be stated in both the cases are as under:--(A) Income Tax Reference No. 35/1994 : (Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur v. Udhoji Shri Krishandas, Satna) In this reference assessment years involved are 1972-73 to 1976-77. M/s Udhoji Shri Krishna Das Agarwal is a reg...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Sagir Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ1027MP; 2004(2)MPHT179; 2004(2)MPLJ359
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Facing difficulty and hindrance with the pronouncement of law in the case of Narayan Singh v. M.P.E.B., 2002(3) MPLJ 571 wherein it was held that if an employee seeks relief by preferring an application under Sections 31 (3), 61 and 62 of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act) after the expiration of the statutory time limit provided under the said Act, the said application could not be entertained inasmuch as the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to original proceedings in view of the law stated in the case of Vijay Singh v. Shyam Lal, 2000 (2) MPLJ 131, the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to recommend the matter to be placed before a Larger Bench of the law enunciated by the Full Bench in the case of Nihalkaran v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bhopal, 1987 MPLJ 562 and Somsingh Onkarsingh v. M.P.S.R.T.C., Bhopal and Ors., 1980 MPLJ 211 and further the MPIR Act being a beneficial statute enacted wit...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Bharti and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2004MP135
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this appeal preferred under Section 100, CPC, the plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing his suit and affirmed by the first appellate Court.2. A suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by the plaintiffs that the 'blue print' of shopping complex which was shown to him by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be constructed in the Mission Colony, Damoh Situated at Sagar-Jabalpur Road and the shops be allotted to them. According to the plaintiffs except the suit place, the defendants should not construct the shopping complex at any other place.3. According to the plaintiffs the defendants advertised an advertisement that they are going to construct a shopping complex and the intended purchaser may submit applications for the allotment of the shops. The plaintiffs approached Assistant Engineer N.K. Deshpande who told them that the proposed shopping complex shall be constructed at the place which has been indicated hereinab...
Tag this Judgment!Babukhan and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3299; 2004(2)MPLJ53
S.L. Kochar, J.1. All the aforesaid three appeals arise out of one and the same judgment, therefore, they are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellants Babukhan and Chhotekhan have filed Cri. Appeal No. 222/96 and they are also appellants Nos. 4 and 5 in Cri. Appeal No. 253/96. Therefore, this judgment shall also govern the disposal of both these appeals.3. The abovenamed six appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 302/149, 323/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 97/94 on 6-3-94 who sentenced each of the appellants to suffer R.I. for two years under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, Abidkhan, Babukhan, Chhotekhan, Gullukhan, Muzaffar Dilwar to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment whereof to further undergo R.I. for one year under Sections 302 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code and to suffer R.I. for six mon...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Singh Vs. Subhash Chandra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP97
ORDERS. Samvatsar, J.1. Heard.2. This revision is tiled by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 4-4-2003 passed by the Executing Court whereby the Court below has rejected his objection as to the executability of the decree.3. The brief facts of the ease are that a decree, for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- is passed in favour of the respondent decree-holder. The decretal amount is to be paid as per the terras of the decree in two instalments. As the said installments are not paid the decree-holder filed execution proceedings. In the said execution proceedings an objection was raised by the judgment-debtor stating that, lie has already paid the amount to the decree-holder, hence the decree cannot be executed. The Court below rejected the objection relying on the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2 sub-clause (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure by Stating that since the payment is not certified in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rules 1 and 2 CPC the same cannot be recognised.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Udhoji Shri Krishandas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN465(MP)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.The following two questions have been referred by the Division Bench for adjudication before the Larger Bench :'1. In view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra), whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that assessee was entitled to interest under sections 214 and 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of interest under section 244(1A) on refunds in respect of any amount of tax including self-assessment tax paid or given credit in assessment completed after 31-3-1975 ?'2. The facts which are essential to be stated in both the cases are as under :(A) CIT v. Udhoji Shri Krishandas (IT Reference No. 35 of 1994)In this reference assessment years involved are 1972-73 to 1976-77. M/s. Udhoji Shri Krishan Das Agarwal is registered partnership firm in which following were...
Tag this Judgment!Hifajat Ali Vs. Ajijurehman and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC13; 2006ACJ632; 2004(4)MPLJ2
P.C. Agrawal, J.1. On 6.3.1997 at about 8 p.m. Hifajat All, claimant, a pedestrian, sustained injuries in a scooter accident. As per claimant this scooter No. MP 10-B 984 belonged to Ayesha Sultana, the owner, who happens to be an Assistant Surgeon in Ayurvedic Hospital, Khargone, As per claimant the scooter was driven by Rafik, juvenile son of Ayesha Sultana, rashly and negligently. On report of the claimant, the police had prosecuted Ajijurehman Sheikh, respondent No. 1, a private doctor, practising at Sendhwa, the husband of Ayesha Sultana, under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The Claims Tribunal below held that the offending scooter was being driven by Rafik, respondent No. 2, the juvenile son, rashly and negligently and awarded in all Rs. 33,000 for permanent disability and mental and physical pain and suffering, Rs. 7,597 + Rs. 920 + Rs. 5,681 = Rs. 14,198 as medical expenses, Rs. 11,800 as loss of salary of two months, in all Rs. 56,000 in lump sum with interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Jethani and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT531
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J.1. The applicant/accused has filed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13-1-2004 passed by learned XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T No. 91/02 whereby the document is admitted by the learned Trial Court, Indore in the evidence.2. The applicants are facing the trial in the Court of XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of the IPC and the allegation against the applicants is that the dowry death of Reshma was caused. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and Rajesh Pardasani (P.W. 3) who is the brother of the deceased has filed the Phonogram and the Phonogram was taken on record by the learned Trial Court.3. The objection of the applicants is that the learned Trial Court has erred in admitting the document because there is no provision to admit that document during recording the evidence. That the alleged documents were not produced during investigation. Conse...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Bilal HussaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Cbn
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT404
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/accused has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 12-11-97, in Special Case No. 14/97, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ujjain of his conviction and sentence under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act') for 10 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default further RI for 2 years.2. Prosecution case is that P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3), Sub Inspector, Central Narcotic Bureau, Ratlam received the information on 4-12-96 at about 7.45 p.m. by the approver on telephone that the accused carrying heroin is coming from Gujarat to Ratlam and the information was recorded in memo (Ex. P-3) and he went alongwith raiding party to the Railway Station, Ratlam where on platform No. 4 the accused was found standing near the bathroom. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) informed him that he is suspected as carrying the contraband and he has a right to get himself searched in presence of the nearest Magistrate or the G...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Spinners Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR175]; (2004)IILLJ869MP
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The petitioner by filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge an order, dated April 2, 2003 (Annexure P-2).2. The order impugned is passed under the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 whereby demand for outstanding dues towards payment of provident fund dues has been raised on petitioner.3. Indeed, perusal of order (Annexure P-2) itself indicates that the same is passed after affording 34 opportunities to the petitioner. In other words, proceedings for determination of the outstanding dues payable by the petitioner were pending from June 11, 2001 till April 2, 2003. During these days, as many as 34 dates were fixed for holding an inquiry. The petitioner attended few of these but did nothing except to indulge in adjournments. Eventually, the impugned order was passed based on best judgment assessment.4. It cannot be disputed that petitioner is a chronic default...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »