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.
Cit Vs. Beta Nepthol Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN397(MP)
A.M. Sapre J.This is an appeal filed by the revenue (Income-tax department) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order, dated 3-3-1999, 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 CIT(A) and the Tr...
Cit Vs. Ives Drugs (India) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN176(MP)
ORDER1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case we are of the considered view that the view taken by the Tribunal on the question sought to be raised by the appellant in this appeal is already answered against the revenue in the case of J.P. Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1998]229ITR123(MP) , which according to the learned counsel appearing for the revenue was eventually upheld even by their Lordships of the Supreme Court.2. The short question that fell for consideration before the Assessing Authority was as to how the deduction available to the assessee under section 80I of the Act should be calculated. With reference to the another provision viz., under section 80HH. This precise issue was examined by this court in J.P. Tobacco Products supra and it was answered against the revenue, thereby accepting the interpretation placed by the assessee while calculating the deduction available under section 80I and 80HH of the Act.3. In thi...
Premsukh Talkies and ors. Vs. Harikishan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC309
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. The appellants/defendants have filed the appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.1997 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 162-B/1988, whereby the claim for damages of Rs, 30,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded to the respondent/plaintiff.2. The admitted facts of the case are that Premsukh Talkies at Indore is being run by registered firm defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are its partners.3. That the plaintiff Harikishan was watching the picture in the cinema hall on 22.11.1988 of the show from 9.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. and at about 10.00 p.m. the plaintiff got the shock from the electric current while sitting on his seat and he fainted in the cinema hall.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the chairs on which he was sitting with his friends were having the iron rods and on account of the negligence in the maintenance, electric current leaked from the...
Expert Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST177(MP)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. These applications are filed by the assessee under Section 70(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 seeking a direction to the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Tribunal to state the case and refer the following substantial questions of law to this court:(a) Whether in the circumstances of the case and the fact that the cement was purchased from Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, which was a registered dealer and in whose hands full tax was realised at 12 per cent, there is justification in law to hold that the applicant is entitled to a set-off only to the extent of 0.5 per cent and not 8 per cent as claimed by him?(b) Whether in view of the fact that MPEB was liable to pay sales tax at the full rate in accordance with Section 14A and, on that analogy, the entire sales tax at full rate was paid, there is justification in law in restricting the set-off only to the extent of 0.5 per cent?(c) Whether the disallowance of the claim of set-off as clai...
Harisingh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT13
S.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment dated 18-6-2004 passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsinghgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2003 arising out of Criminal Case No. 370/2000, judgment dated 28-11-2002 passed by learned JMFC, Narsinghgarh, whereby affirmed the conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 326, 326/34 of IPC but modified the sentence. Instead of three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 750/- the applicant No. 1 Harisingh has been sentenced to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 750/- and applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 750/- each under Section 326/34 of IPC.2. The learned Counsel for applicants Shri Mayank Upadhyaya, has submitted that prior to filing application for grant of permission to compound the offence, the complainant Ramsingh who is present today before this Court had als...
Smt. Vimal Upadhyay and anr. Vs. Harisingh Chouhan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT111
ORDERP.C. Agarwal, J.1. By impugned order dated 22-2-2003 the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore ('RCA' for short) has ordered re-entry of the non- applicant/tenant under Section 23-G (3) & (4) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short).2. Facts necessary for decision of this revision, in brief, are as follows :-(A) Late Prashant Kumar Chourasia (N.A. 2) since dead represented by his legal representatives (N.A. 2/a to 2/c) had applied for eviction of Harisingh (N.A. 1) - the tenant, from house No. B/94, MIG Colony, Indore on the ground of bonafide requirement for his own residence after his retirement before RCA. This application No. A-90(7)-34/90/1997 was allowed on 30-11-1998. Revision by Harisingh (N.A. 1) was dismissed by this Court and late Prashant Kumar Chourasia (N.A. 2) had obtained vacant possession of the house on 9-2-1999 in execution.(B) On 22-11-2000 Harisingh (N.A. 1) applied for his re-entry under Section 23-G of the Act and on 20-8-2001 obtained a te...
Ram Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Collector, Shahdol and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT501; 2004(3)MPLJ640
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This petition was originally filed before this Court on 4-7-85 and was registered as Misc. Petition No. 1961 of 1985, however, on the establishment of Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal the same was transferred to it and later on, on its abolition again has been received by this Court for adjudication.2. No exhaustive statement of facts is necessary for disposal of this petition. Suffice it to state that the petitioner, who was serving on the post of Accountant was retired compulsorily vide Annexure A, dated 13-5-85. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on account of adverse A.C.R. for the period 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1984, the order of compulsory retirement (Annexure A) dated 13-5-85 was issued by the respondents. Shri Dubey, learned Counsel for petitioner by placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer (AIR 1992 SC 1020), Madan Mohan Choudhary v. Slate of Bihar (AIR 1999 SC 101...
Girraj Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT57; 2005(1)MPLJ290
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This revision is filed by the applicants accused challenging an order dated 11-4-2000 passed by Special Judge, Guna in Case No. 39/98 S.T., whereby the Special Judge has transferred the matter to the concerned Magistrate for proceeding with the committal proceedings. Counsel for applicants submits that the said order is illegal and contrary to law.2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against the applicants accused for committing offence under Section 302/34, IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Said complaint was registered as Crime No. 179/98. Challan was filed by the prosecution directly before the Sessions Court, Guna and was not committed to the said Court according to the provisions of law. Apex Court in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. Stale of A.P., 2000(2) M.P.H.T. 101 (SC) = 2000(1) Supreme (Cr.) 132, has laid down that the cognizance of offence under the Atrocit...
Sitara Begum Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT77
Dipak Misra, J.1. Sitara Begum @ Mussu the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') faced trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) alongwith one Pappu @ Rafeeq for offences punishable under Sections 450 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC on the allegation that on 29-9-2000 in the morning hours there was a quarrel between the accused person and the deceased, Hamida Begum as the children of Hamida Begum entered inside the courtyard of the accused to attend the call of nature. The accused got angry on this kind of act of children of Hamida Begum and both the accused persons entered into the house of the deceased. Thereafter, Sitara @ Mussu threw a burning kerosene lamp towards Hamida. The burning lamp was thrown over Hamida who sustained 70% injuries and was admitted to hospital at Shahdol. On 27-10-2000 she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. It is pertinent to state here that the dying declaration was recorded vide Ex. P-13 at 8.44...
Chunnilal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC222
S.S. Jha, J.1. Appellant is aggrieved by his conviction for an offence under Section 302,1.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and for an offence under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment by the Court of D.K. Paliwal, First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 199/1986 decided on 31.8.1995.2. It is alleged that on 1.8.1988 at about 11 in the morning appellant throttled the neck of his wife Devika Bai and murdered her and after committing her murder he set the dead body on fire with an intention to hide the crime. It is admitted that deceased was wife of appellant and they were married 3-4 years prior to the date of incident.3. On 1.8.1988 Harprasad, Chowkidar of village Berkhedi (P.W. 11) has lodged the information at Police out Post Madhogarh that at about 12 in the afternoon Devika Bai wife of Chunnilal has burnt herself by pouring kerosene oil upon her. police after registering Marg at 01/88 investigated the matter unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »