Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raja Ginning Udyog
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)59
1. Heard on admission.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), against the order dt. 3rd Jan., 2003 passed by Tribunal, Indore. In this appeal, appellant is also challenging the earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 5th Oct., 2001, whereby on application being filed by respondent-assessee herein under Section 254(2) of the Act, the same was allowed. We are of the opinion that in the present appeal, appellant-Revenue cannot be permitted to challenge the earlier order dt. 5th Oct., 2001, whereby the application of the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Act was allowed. If the appellant had felt aggrieved against the said order, then at that time it should have preferred an appeal against the said order. It did not do so. Thus, the said order has attained finality. Thus, in the present appeal we are required to consider the correctness and propriety of the subsequent appellate order passed by the Tribunal.3. The matt...
Prism Cement Limited Vs. Delta Construction Systems Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT479; 2004(2)MPLJ228
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this application, filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act'), the applicant has prayed to appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute which has arisen between the parties in pursuance of the contract, Annexure A-1.2. In nutshell, it has been contended, in the application that to manufacture the cement, limestone is used as raw material and for that purpose, the applicant-company has been granted mining leases in the areas surrounding its plant for mining of limestone. It has been put forth in the application that for breaking limestone and hard rock, the applicant had entered into a contract with non-applicant vide its order dated 16-08-2001 (Annexure A-1). Under this contract the non-applicant agreed to deploy Indico make rock breaker duly mounted on DEML make excavator in the mine of the applicant. Under Clause 10.9 of the contract, the non-applicant agreed that after commissioning Mega Rock Breaker a...
Mukesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT64
S.L. Kochar, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15th March, 2001, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 23/1999, thereby convicting him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional RI for 2 years.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 9-11-1998 Meharsingh (P.W. 8), Lakhansingh (P.W. 9), Ranveer (P.W. 10), deceased Balveersingh and their companion Lakhan came with their truck at Indore. They stayed near the Hotel (Dhaba) of acquitted co-accused Balram and cooked vegetable by their own. For the purposes of preparation of Roti (Chapati) they had given flour to Balram for which they were required to pay 30 rupees as labour charges. When they received Roti, the same were in burnt condition on which deceased Balveersingh and his companions Meharsingh (P.W. 8), Lakhansin...
Yuvraj Tukoji Rao Puar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)142; 2005(191)ELT79(MP); [2004]271ITR152(MP)
Kumar Rajaratnam, C.J.1. In this petition preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for declaration that section 95(i)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is ultra vires, being defiant of article 14 of the Constitution and further to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated April 16, 2003. In addition there is a prayer to consider the declaration filed by the assessee under section 88 of the Act on the merits.2. The facts which are essential to be stated are that the late H. H. Krishnaji Rao Puar filed a petition under section 31(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Wealth-tax Act'), before the Commissioner, Wealth-tax, Bhopal, on November 27, 1995, with a prayer of waiver of interest under section 31(2) for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1963-64 to 1990-91. The aforesaid petition faced rejection vide order dated January 24, 1997. The assessee, the late H. H. Krishnaji Rao P...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mittal Appliances and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)136; [2004]270ITR65(MP)
ORDER1. This order shall govern disposal of ITA No. 61 of 1999, CIT v. Agarwal Breweries Ltd., ITA No. 24 of 2000, CIT v. Panjon (P) Ltd., ITA No. 25 of 2000, CIT v. Panjon (P) Ltd., ITA No. 22 of 2002, CIT v. Purti Pipes, ITA No. 23 of 2002, CIT v. Purti Pipes. In all these appeals the common questions of law are involved. Thus, they have been taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.2. To appreciate the factual matrix, we are taking up the facts as have been mentioned in the aforesaid appeal. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 against the order dt. 13th Nov., 1998 passed by the Tribunal holding that deductions under Section 80HH and Section 80I of the IT Act, 1961 are admissible before the set off of the carried forward profits and loss derived from new industrial undertaking. In all the matters, the Tribunal has held that the question involved is covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of th...
Bhagiya and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT254
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The ten appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 3-12-94 passed by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar in Sessions Trial No. 381/93, thereby convicting them under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them each to suffer R.I. for three years, imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional S.I. for three months and R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional S.I. for three months respectively. The substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court were that on 1-7-2003, the complainant Shankar (P.W. 1) was residing at Village Satsagania Gujri. His parents Pandu and Fulkibai had returned from Indore after doing labour work and stayed at Gujri. When he (the complainant) reached his house, his father informed that the appella...
Bhanwarlal and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT349; 2003(3)MPLJ241
S.L. Kochar, J. 1.The appellants above-named have preferred these appeals against the judgment dated 3-7-95 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 211/93 by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 147, 302 in the alternative under Section 148, Section 302/149, 323, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them as noted hereunder :--Bharatsingh, Saudan- To undergo R.I. for one month with finesingh, Omprakash and Rs. 500/-. In default to suffer S.I. for oneBhanwarlal month, under Section 148, IPC.Bharatsingh and To undergo R.I. for three months withSaudansingh fine of Rs. 500/-. In default whereof to suffer one month's S.L each under Section 323, IPC.Shyam, Ramchandra, To undergo R.I. for one month with fineMansingh and Modsingh Rs. 500/- under Section 147, IPC.Mansingh, Bharatsingh, To undergo imprisonment for life withSaudansingh, Bhanwar- fine Rs. 1,000/- each. In default oflal, Omprakash, Ram- paym...
Dr. Amit Kumar Aritwal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT382; 2004(3)MPLJ82
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The essential question of law being common to these two cases they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity we think it appropriate to state the facts in each case in brief.2. In W.P. No. 27632/03 the factual matrix as has been exposited is that the petitioner applied for entrance examination for post graduation course which was conducted as per the M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduation Entrance Examination Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The written test was held on 9-3-2003. The petitioner secured 573 marks out of 900 and was placed at serial No. 232 in the waiting list. The first counselling was held in the month of May, 2003 wherein the candidates from the merit list were called for allotment of P.G. seats in different medical colleges. The subsequent counsellings, as setforth, were held on 23-7-2003 and 25-7-2003. Thereafter as some seats from the assistance surgeon quota have been rever...
Jeevanlal JaIn Vs. Khatija Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC428
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed by the plaintiff, against an interim order, dated 30.6.2000 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 5-B of 1998. The need to file this writ has arisen, because according to petitioner he has no right of civil revision which he could have filed earlier under Section 115 of C.P. Code i.e. prior to amendment in the C.P.C. which was brought into effect from 1.7.2002.2. Heard Mr. M.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Phaye, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The short but legal question that arises for consideration in this writ is, whether learned trial Judge was justified in holding that the document in question (Exhibit P-2) is & bond and not a promissory note? In other words, the question that arises for consideration is, whether Exhibit P-2 can be held to be a bond or a promissory note on its true construction? It is...
Ambika Stone Crushing Factory Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC434
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed by the judgment-debtor, against an interim order, dated 3.12.2003 (Annexure P-16), passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Indore in M.J.C. No. 108 of 1982. The need to file this writ has arisen, because according to petitioner he has no right of civil revision which he could have filed earlier under Section 115 of C.P. Code i.e. prior to amendment in the C.P.C. which was brought into effect from 1.7.2002.2. Heard Mrs. S. Waghmare, learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. In my view, the petitioner (non-applicant/judgment-debtor in the Court below) has no case either on facts or in law.4. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a defaulting borrower and has failed to repay the loan taken by them for running the Unit. It is for realisation of these outstanding dues, the respondent (MPFC) has filed an application out of which this writ arises under. Section 31 of State Financial Corpor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »