Madhya Pradesh Court August 2006 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.
Smee Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Cit and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(MP)386
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J :The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of IT Appeal No. 51 of 2002 because both these appeals arise out of common impugned order, passed by Tribunal except the difference being that IT Appeal No. 49 of 2002, i.e., present appeal is filed by the assessee whereas, IT Appeal No. 51 of 2002 is filed by the revenue (CIT). In other words, these are two cross-appeals which arise out of one impugned order.2. This is an appeal filed by assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 7-3-2002, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench (for short hereinafter called 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 639/Ind/1994 and ITA No. 495/Ind/1994 (reported as Dy. CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (2004) 88 TTJ (Ind) 717-Ed.) (Annex.-A). This appeal (IT Appeal No. 49 of 2002) was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law'1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not allowing the deduction of expenditure incurred in ass...
Shree Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR451(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of IT Appeal No. 51 of 2002 because both these appeals arise out of common impugned order, passed by Tribunal except the difference being that IT Appeal No. 49 of 2002, i.e., present appeal is filed by the assessee whereas, IT Appeal No. 51 of 2002 is filed by the Revenue (CIT). In other words, these are two cross-appeals which arise out of one impugned order.2. This is an appeal filed by assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 7th March, 2002, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench (for short hereinafter called 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 639/Ind/1994 and ITA No. 495/Ind/1994 [reported as Dy. CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (2004) 88 TTJ (Ind) 717.] (Annex.-A). This appeal (IT Appeal No. 49 of 2002) was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not allowing the deduction of expenditure incurred in asst. y...
Saraswatibai Vs. Chhitarlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC790
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 17th July, 2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur, in Claim Case No. 26/2002 by which against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000 the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,32,500.2. Appellant is the mother of the deceased Shankarlal who was a labourer and the only son of the appellant. On 4.2.2002, on Agra-Bombay Road, while the deceased was going on foot at 8.00 p.m., a truck bearing Registration No. RJ 26 G 0379 approached from the side of Maksi and on account of the rashness and negligence of its driver, it collided with Shankarlal. Shankarlal was rushed to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. It was stated that Shankarlal was earning Rs. 4,500 per month and was aged 30 years and on that basis the said amount was claimed as compensation.3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim as also the amount of compensation demanded. It was also pleaded that the driver of the truck did not ha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Maya Chotrani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(MP)413; [2007]288ITR175(MP)
Arun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal. It is not in dispute that search and seizure operations were carried out in the month of October, 1996. During the course of search and seizure operations at the various residential premises, certain incriminating documents pertaining to Smt. Maya Chotrani were seized. Action under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was initiated in her case. It is also not disputed that Smt. Maya Chotrani is a NRI resident of Dubai. No search was conducted at her premises.2. Assessment under Section 158BD, read with Section 143(3) of the Act for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 was completed on November 30, 1998, determining total undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 5,06,380. An order (annexure A) was passed by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle-I, Bhopal. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribu...
Dinesh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC692
S.S. Dwivedi, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 6.10.1994 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 160/1993, whereby the appellant has been found guilty under Section 304B, IPC and has been sentenced to 10 years' RI. He has also been found guilty under Section 498A IPC and has been sentenced to three years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000; in default of payment of fine further ordered to suffer imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has got married with the deceased Kiranbai on 17.1.1993 as per the Hindu rites. After the marriage both the present appellant as well as his wife Kiranbai lived together. As per the prosecution case, the appellant repeatedly harassed the deceased Kiranbai with regard to the demand of dowry and subjected her with cruelty. Resultantly, Kiranbai consumed some...
Agrawal Colour Photo Industries Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: 2007[8]STR3
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Sumit Nema, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Upadhyaya, Advocate for the respondents.2. Mr. Rajesh Upadhyaya states that Mr. O.P. Namdeo, Advocate, will appear for the respondents.3. Issue notice.4. Mr. Rajesh Upadhyaya, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. O.P. Namdeo, Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents.5. Extra copy of the petition with annexures be served on the respondents.6. Mr. Sumit Nema, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the demand of service tax pursuant to the order dated 25-11-2005 (Annex. P/11) of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Division, Jabalpur, has been upheld by the order dated 17-4-2006 (Annex. P/13) of (the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal, on the whole turnover of the petitioner relating to processing and exposing of colour photographic film, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors....
J.P. Sanghi Vs. the State Bar Counsil of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ612
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner is a Senior Advocate practicing in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and is aggrieved by the non-allotment of a chamber to him by the respondent No. 1, State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (for short The State Bar Council').2. The facts very briefly are that the State Bar Council constructed chambers for Advocates practicing in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at, Jabalpur. Under the Rules for Allotments Chambers, every applicant desirous ; of obtaining a chamber from the State Bar Council was to make an application in writing addressed to the Secretary of the State Bar Council in the prescribed form and to furnish alongwith such application a security amount and the office, was to maintain a chronological list of applications for allotment of chambers and the chambers were normally to be allotted in the chronological order by the Secretary of the State Bar Council.3. The petitioner applied for allotment of chamber and made a security ...
Vinod Laxmiprasad Rai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ296
W.A. Shah, J.1. Vinod and Sandeep were tried together for offences punishable under Sections 450, 394/397, 302 and in the alternative 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 48/2002 and therein vide judgment dated 8-7-2003 Sandeep has been acquitted while Vinod has been convicted and sentenced as under:(a) Under Section 450 Penal Code, to RI for 10 years.(b) Under Section 394/397 Penal Code, to Life Imprisonment.(c) Under Section 302/34 Penal Code, to Life Imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 1,000-00 relating to murder of Harivallabh and also under Section 302/34 Penal Code, to Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000-00 relating to murder of Meenu, a 2 years female child.(d) Under Section 201/34 Penal Code, to RI for 7 years.All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and for each default of payment of fine, separate sentence of 10 months RI has been directed.2. Accused appellant Vinod bei...
Mayank @ Vaibhava Vs. Public in General and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT189
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aaggrieved by the order dated 23-10-2003 passed by XVII ADJ, Indore in Succession Case No. 8/2002, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 278 of the India Succession Act, 1925 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'Act') has been rejected, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that deceased was Ms. Renuka Bai w/o Balkrishna, who passed away on 6-11-1998. After her death the appellant filed a petition under Section 278 of the Act on 3-8-2000 alleging that the deceased-Renuka Bai executed the registered Will on 22-8-1995 before her death, whereby the property which is a house bearing municipal No. 70, old 81, now situated at Barabhal, Indore was given to the appellant. Hence, it was prayed that the Letter of Administration be issued in his favour.3. The petition filed by the appellant was opposed by the respondents on various grounds and it was prayed that petition for grant of Probate/Letter of Administration ...
Rajesh Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPLJ154
Rakesh Saksena, J.1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 15-1-1993 passed by Special Judge, Rewa in Special Criminal Case No. 7/86 convicting the appellant under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count respectively. Sentence directed to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Assistant Surgeon in Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Rewa. On 10-6-1985 Asgar Ali and Jebunnisa were sent to him for medical examination as a medico legal case. It is said that appellant demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe for sending correct medical report to police. When complainant Shakil Khan (P.W. 3) came to know about the demand of bribe by the appellant, he went to him and asked him to send the report as it is. Appellant repeated his demand of money fr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »