Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(2)MPHT206; 2005(2)MPLJ550
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In C.R. No. 1330/2003 question has been referred for consideration of Larger Bench as to applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act to a revision preferred under Section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1983') beyond period of limitation in the High Court. Revision is barred by limitation. Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. Correctness of the decision of Division Bench in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co., 2004(II) MPJR SN 55 taking the view that in the absence of provision in Act of 1983 delay can not be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been referred for consideration of Larger Bench on 7-5-2004 in the light of decision rendered by the Apex Court in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, (1995) 5 SCC 5 = AIR 1995 SC 2272. In C.R. No. 633/2003, C.R. No. 1000/2003 and C.R. No. 151/2004, similar question has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(MP)287; [2008]296ITR173(MP)
ORDERAshok Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 31st March, 1999 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Crl. Appeal No. 81 of 1998 against the conviction of the applicants and the sentence imposed on him by the learned 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. .2. Applicant No. 1 Rameshwar Prasad Sunderlal was a partnership firm and applicant Nos. 2 (since dead) and 3 were the partners of the aforesaid firm. The other partners of the firm namely, Balaram and Janabai has expired during the trial. The aforesaid firm was income-tax payer. The IT returns on behalf of the firm had to be filed for the asst. yr. 1980-81 under Section 139(1) of the IT Act on 30th June, 1980, but the return was filed on 29th June, 1981. Thus, the return was filed after 11 months from the due date. According to the Department this delay was caused wilfully. Therefore, the prosecution was launched against the firm and its partners Jai Narayan, Balaram, Jana Bai and Radh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP168; 2008(1)MPHT54
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. This batch of appeals was listed for rectification of default, the same being, the affidavit that has been filed in support of the applicant for condonation of delay preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in each case has been sworn to by the Oath Commissioner instead of Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952. Though the aforesaid matters were listed for rectification of the aforesaid singular default which has been pointed out by the Registry, Mr. A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.C. Paliwal, Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Mr. Ashok Lalwani, Mr. Greeshm Jain, Mr. K.N. Fakaruddin, Mr. Ashish Shroti, Mr. Ashish Trivedi, Mr. N.S. Parmar, Mr. D.K. Sharma and Mr. Vipin Sharma, Advocates addressed this Court that the default pointed out by the Registry is absolutely erroneous as such a default does not emerge if the provisions engrafted in various enactments and rules framed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh from time to time are scrutinized in proper pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2009]178TAXMAN208(MP)
May it please your Lordships,1. The above named appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the ITAT in IT Appeal (SS) No. 1 l/Ind./2005 dated 20-7-2007 for the block period 1-4-1995 to 5-12-2001 humbly prefers this appeal as under:Facts In Brief2. The brief facts of the case are that the search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in this case on 5-12-2001. The assessee was doing the business of sales and purchases of wheat, gram, soya, etc. During the assessment proceedings, it was noted that there were cash entries in the name of the farmers.Income-tax Appeal No. 430/2007, 2-1-20083. Mr. R.L. Jain, senior advocate with Ms. Veena Mandlik, counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.4. The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in IT Appeal (SS )No. 11 /Ind./2005, dated 20-7-2007 for the Block period between 1-4-1995 to 5-12-2001, is before this Court with a submission that the Tribunal erred in not appreci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)17VST465(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Regard being had to the similitude and interconnectivity of the controversy that is involved in this batch of writ petitions it is disposed of by a singular order. It is condign to state at the outset that in some of the writ petitions, the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for brevity, 'the 1976 Act') is called in question and prayer has been made to declare the entire enactment ultra vires Articles 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution and in some of the writ petitions the assail is to the constitutional validity of the notifications issued under the 1976 Act on the foundation that they invite the frown on Article 301 of the Constitution and also fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. Keeping in view the nature of the challenge and the contours of the attack I will advert to the issue of validity of the Act first and thereafter I shall dwell upon the substantiality and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT418
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. In this batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the common questions which arise for decision are that how far is it permissible under the Constitution for the State to control and regulate admissions and fees in private unaided professional educational institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The background facts are that in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh : (1993) 1 SCC 645, a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that there was no fundamental right to professional education which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution but framed a scheme in the nature of guidelines which the appropriate Governments and recognising and affiliating authorities were to implement as conditions for grant of permission, recognition or affiliation under which the seats in professional colleges were to be divided into free seats and payment seats and a common entrance test was to be conducted by the State Government and the first ...
Tag this Judgment!