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.
M/S. Sono Medical Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]149TAXMAN67(MP)
This is a reference made at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Tribunal to answer the following questions of law by this Court:-'1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in not allowing set off of brought forward depreciation for assessment year 1988-89 claimed at Rs. 1,73,417 for working of book profit under section 115(J) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has rightly held that as per provision of clause (iv) of the explanation to section 115(J)(1A) the brought forward depreciation of Rs. 1,73,417 was not allowable while computing the book profit under section 115(J) since there was profit of Rs. 65,562 before depreciation for A.Y. 1988-89?3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Honble Tribunal has rightly held that the ratio of judgment of M.P. High Court in the case of M/s. Kedia Leather & Liquor (P) Ltd., Indore, is not appl...
Ankit Steel and ors. Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC534
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 5.10.2003, passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Case No. R-315/2003 (Annexure P-3). Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.2. Respondent-Bank instituted a civil suit No. 49-B of 1994 against the petitioners before the District Judge, Indore for recovery of Rs. 49.23.754/-. During pendency of this suit, the Act called 'The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993' was enacted by the Parliament. In terms of the provisions of this Act, the aforesaid suit was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal being T.A. No. 945 of 1998. On 13.7.2000, the Tribunal decreed the claim (Annexure P-1) in respondents' favour by allowing the claim application. The petitioner then filed an appeal being Appeal No. A-29/2001 to Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Act against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal...
Ram Autar Pande Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR279]; 2004(3)MPHT515; 2004(4)MPLJ377
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This petition was originally filed on 17-12-1986 before this Court and was registered as Misc. Petition No. 4137/86, however, on the formation of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, this petition was transferred to its and after abolition of the Tribunal again this petition has been received by this Court for adjudication.2. The petitioner by this petition has challenged his order of compulsory retirement passed after holding disciplinary enquiry against him. That order is Annexure A-21 which has been passed by DIG, Police. It is no more in dispute that later on the said order by which the petitioner was directed to be retired compulsorily was affirmed in the departmental appeal vide Annexure A-23, dated 2-9-1983 by Inspector General of Police and the revision petition which was preferred by the petitioner before the Director General of Police was also dismissed vide Annexure R-2 on 29-10-1984.3. Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Government Advocate, has not dis...
Bhaiyalal Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT74; 2004(4)MPLJ458
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. An order dated 18-11-2003 was passed against the appellant/Employer under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) directing him to deposit certain amounts due in respect of the period from April, 1993 to September, 1999. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition for review of the said order under Section 7B of the Act. The said review petition was rejected. When the review petition was rejected, the appellant challenged the original order dated 18-11-2003 in W.P. No. 2457/2004.2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition by order dated 2-7-2004 on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available under Section 7I of the Act. The said rejection is challenged in this appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on Section 7B(5) of the Act to contend that the remedy by way of an appeal is not available to him again...
Jabalpur Development Authority Vs. Sharad Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ304MP; 2004(3)MPLJ618
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated June 27, 2003 (Annexure P/4) in Case No. 30/99/MPIR of the Labour Court and order dated November 1, 2003 (Annexure P/6) in Appeal No. 100/MPIR/2003 of the Industrial Court, Jabalpur by which the petitioner has been directed to classify the respondent as 'permanent employee'.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as sub-engineer on daily wages in Jabalpur Development Authority (JDA) on October 1, 1991 and he is by now completing almost thirteen years in that capacity. It is also not controverted that his work has been satisfactory. He submitted an application under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1960) stating therein that he was appointed in a 'clear vacancy'. He claimed that he became a permanent employee as per Clause 2(i) and (vi) of the Standard Standing Orders (SSOs...
Mahesh Niranjan Jute Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC294(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated February 28, 2004 (annexure P 11), passed by State Under Section 62(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (for short called 'the Act'). Facts of the case are these.2. At the outset, I may take note of the impugned order and also what it contains while rejecting the application of petitioner (dealer) made Under Section 62(7) of the Act:1 esllZ egs'k fujatu twV izk- fy- bUnkSj us vof/k 01-04-1998 ls 31-03-1999 rd izkarh; izdj.k esa ikfjr dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k fnukad 25-03-2003 ds fo:) e/; izns'k okf.kfT;d dj vf/kfu;e 1994 dh /kkjk 627 ds vUrxZr jkT; 'kklu dks fuxjkuh vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k gSA2 O;;lk; ls izkIr fuxjkuh vkosnu i= ds laca/k esa okf.kfT;d ls izfrosnu rFkk izdj.k ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k izkIr fd;s x;s mlds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k ijh{k.kksijkUr iw.kZ fopkjksijkUr O;olk; dk fuxjkuh vkosnu i= vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA3. Se...
C.R. Chandrol Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT513; 2004(3)MPLJ608
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 6-9-2003 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 79,299/- so that arrears of his pension may be released.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer at Mandla. He has retired on 31-5-1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. By the impugned order dated 6-9-2003 (Annexure P-1) he has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 79,299/- so that the arrears of pension be paid to him. In this letter it is not disclosed what is the basis for claiming this amount from the petitioner and how this figure has been worked out. It is not disputed that for recovery of this amount no departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner during his employment or after retirement. There is a departmental enquiry but that is in respect of some other charges which has nothing to...
Smt. Seema Goyal Vs. Chhatrapal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT332
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. With consent heard finally.2. Through this application filed under Section 24 of the CPC, the applicant/wife is seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 6-A/2003, filed by respondent/husband under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen to the Court of District Judge, Mandla.3. The applicant's case is that she is residing at Niwas District Mandla and it is difficult for her to attend the case filed by the respondent at Begumganj. Her father is a retired Government servant and has undergone an open heart surgery and as such he is not in a position to travel alongwith her. She is having a minor daughter aged about 9 years. It is also stated in the application that Niwas is about 500 Kms from Begumganj. There is no direct rail connection for going to Begumganj. The applicant is required to come to Jabalpur by bus, thereafter, to go Sagar by Train, stay at Sagar in the night and thereaft...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Beta Nepthol Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR323(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Income-tax Department) under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order, dated March 3, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. (SS) A. No. 455/Ind of 1995.2. 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 appeal.3. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal and that two questions proposed by the appellant (Revenue) do not satisfy the rigour of substantial question of law within the meaning of section 260A of the Act.5. The short question involved in this appeal is, whether the Commiss...
Union of India (UOi) thro' Its Secretary, Ministry of Railway and Ors. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ931MP
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The respondent was an employee of the Central Railway. A charge- sheet was issued on November 1, 1999 alleging fraud and misappropriation by him while working as Head Booking Clerk at Bhopal. One S.P. Nigam was appointed as Inquiry Officer. After inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the respondent guilty of the charges. Acting on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority by order dated October 29, 2001 imposed the punishment of removal from service. The appeal filed by the respondent was rejected on April 3, 2002.2. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in O.A. No. 408/2002. The Respondent urged that the domestic inquiry was opposed to principles of natural justice and therefore vitiated on the following two grounds:(i) The Disciplinary Authority did not appoint any Presenting Officer to present the case. The Inquiry Officer himself acted as the Presenting Officer and conducted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »