Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Sanmati Forest Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)490
ORDER1. This is an application made at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(2) of the IT Act to answer the following question of law proposed by them by this Court and to be called from the Tribunal consequent upon the dismissal of their application made under Section 256(1) of the Act by order dt. 29th Jan., 1999 passed by Tribunal in RA No. 194/Ind/1998 arising out of ITA No. 39/Ind/1994 for asst. yr. 1989-90 :'Whether, in view of the facts of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and restoring that of AO in respect of liability of tax under Section 115J of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. Heard Shri M. Phadke, learned counsel for assessee, and Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the Revenue.3. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that the question proposed to be referred to this Court for answer was subject-matter of discussion before their Lordship of Supreme Court in the case of Surana Steel v. Dy. CIT : [1999]237ITR777(SC) . ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sharada Prasad Motilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)487
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. The decision rendered in this case shall govern disposal of other connected cases being MCG Nos. 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294 and 295 of 1995 because an these oases involve identical point. Secondly, they all arise out of common impugned order passed by the Tribunal and lastly, it is in relation to same assessee, except the difference is that each case relates to different assessment year.2. This is an application made by the Revenue (CIT) under Section 256(2) of IT Act consequent upon the dismissal of application made by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Act by the Tribunal by order dt. 26th Sept., 1994, passed in RA Nos. 15 to 23/Ind/1994 which in turn arises out of ITA Nos. 198 to 206/Ind/1993. In the opinion of Tribunal, the questions proposed do not relate to any issue of law, nor can they be held to be pure question of law for being answered on merits by this Court under Section 256(1) of the Act. According to Tribunal, the questions proposed are pure ques...
Anil More Vs. Pradeepkumar Baduka and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT434; 2004(4)MPLJ539
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This order passed in Cr. Revision No. 883/2003 shall also govern the disposal of Cr. Revision Nos. 884/2003 and 885/2003 above because the applicant in all the three revisions is common, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are common and formal parties and the point involved in all the three revisions are also common.2. This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9-9-2003 passed by the learned First Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Cr. Case No. 126/2003 thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner that he was not a Director of Dunkan Express transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. respondent No. 3. In support of his contention, the petitioner had filed a photo-state copy of a document, original of which was issued by the Company Registrar, Maharashtra in which at column No. 5, it is mentioned that the resignation of the petitioner from the post of Directorship was accepted by the Company in the 24th Annual General Meeting held on 29th Octob...
Nityanand Joshi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT163; 2004(4)MPLJ478
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. All these revisions shall dispose of by this common order because the applicant and non-applicant are the same and point involved are also same in all these three revisions.2. The applicant is a retired Executive Engineer of Municipal Corporation, Indore. He has Tiled these revisions against the order dated 7-2-2002 whereby the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) has framed charges against the applicant under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act').3. The contention of the learned Counsel for applicant is that at the initial stage, sanction for prosecution was not granted by the sanctioning authority by order dated 10-12-99. Thereafter, again the sanction has been granted to prosecute the applicant for the offence under the Act by the Sanctioning Authority by order dated 13-5-2000. The learned Counsel has submitted that the authority once...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Dwarka Prasad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP40; 2004(4)MPLJ168
S.S. Jha, J. 1. In this revision, an application I. A. 3963/03 is filed by the petitioners for converting this revision into miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII, Rule l(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was opposed by the respondents inter alia contending that the scope of appeal is different from the scope of revision, and therefore, application and revision be dismissed. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Munnilal (2003 (2) MPLJ 290) : (AIR 2003 Madh Pra 66), whereas counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision of the single Bench of this Court in the case of Shivkumar v. Ramkatori (1977 JLJ 33). Since two conflicting views were brought to the notice of the single Bench, single Bench has referred the dispute for decision in accordance with law by the Division Bench.2. Question involved in the case is whether revision can be converted into appeal and vice ver...
Jayant Avashiya Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT481; 2004(4)MPLJ315
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. All these revisions shall dispose of by this common order because all are involving almost all same facts and law.2. The applicants have filed these revisions against the order dated 7-2-2002 whereby the learned Trial Court has framed the charge against the applicants under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity called as 'the Act').3. The Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Indore has filed a charge-sheet against the applicant alleging that he had sanctioned the map for constructing building upto the height of 15 mtrs. whereas according to the Corporation Rule he could pass the map or sanction the map only for construction of building upto the height of 12 mtrs. In Criminal Revision No. 336/2002 and Criminal Revision No. 339/2002, the charges were that the applicant has granted sanction for construction of building on the land of Wakf Board without granting sanction by Town and Country P...
Parbhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2009)20VST853(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The question of law being essentially common, this batch of writ petitions was heard analogously and is disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No. 181 of 2003 are adumbrated herein.2. The petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are bidi manufacturers and hire the services of transport operators for transport of raw materials, etc., for them and also for despatch of the finished goods to their customers. The transport charges for the services of the transport operators are paid by petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 on the transport of raw materials to their places, whereas the transport charges for goods sold by them are not paid by them but are paid by the customers, i.e., the consignees. It is urged that the petitioners do not avail the services of clearing and forwarding agents and are not making any payment to them.3. In the year 1994, the Central Government imposed levy of service tax on various services by Finance Act...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sharad Kumar and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(MP)22
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order, dt. 4th Dec, 1998, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 1045/Ind/1994.2. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act that being the prerequisite for admission of appeal3. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri J.K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent.4. We may mention at this stage that though this Court (R.D. Vyas and Shambhoo Singh, JJ.) on 24th July, 2000, admitted this appeal but did not frame any' substantial question of law as is required to be framed while entertaining the appeal under Section 260A ibid. Indeed, this Court cannot admit any appeal under Section 260A of the Act unless the Court is satisfied that appeal involves any substantial question of law. Not only that this Court is ...
Shankarlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT418; 2005(1)MPLJ449
Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.1. Appellant herein stands convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 354 of Indian penal Code and under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment passed by 4th Special Judge, Ujjain, in Special Sessions Trial No. 27/97 on 26-5-1998.2 (a). Briefly stated, the prosecution's case is that the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) is a 'Chamar' by caste and belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Appellant is 'Anjana' by caste and he is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. On the date of incident, prosecutrix (P.W.1) had gone to filed of Kacharulal to cut his crop of JUWAR and in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. she was returning from there to her village, then near the temple of GANPATI, appellant arrived there and he caught hold of her hand and he tried to drag her toward the temple. On hearing cries raised by the prosecutrix (P.W. 1),...
Manoj Vs. Samundar Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ520
P.C. Agarwal, J. 1. As per claim appellant 1890 on 18.6.1997 between Dewas and had been travelling in jeep No. MP 13-C Borsali. Due to the negligent driving by Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1, the jeep had overturned and the appellant had sustained injuries and was taken to Shajapur Government Hospital and from there to Dewas Hospital where he had remained admitted between 19.6.1997 and 8.7.1997. He was admitted once again to Dewas Hospital on 20.10.1997 and 1.12.1997 and continued in hospital till 8.2.1998. He reported the matter to police on 23.6.1998 vide Exh. P-1 and thus, an offence under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by police against him and after due investigation a criminal case was filed against Samundar Singh, the respondent No. 1. Samundar Singh was arrested on 26.9.1998 vide Exh. P-8. MLC report Exh. P-4 dated 13.6.1998 noted healing ulcers on right thigh with bony tenderness. Report Exh. P-9 has shown old fracture with callus formation in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »