Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996MP35
D.P.S. Chouhan, J. 1. Judgment in this appeal will also govern F.A. No. 36/85. Smt. Kajala Devi by means of the writ petition being M.P. No. 771/92 approached this Court against the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer, Income-tax Range Raipur in exercise of power under Rule 11 of the Rules in Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The writ petition, as per the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant, was admitted and was pending in this Court, consequent upon coming into force the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the said petition was dismissed as having become abated. The order of this Court is dated 23-3-1979 an extract of which is quoted below: 'The petitioner's claim to certain houses, which were attached for recovery of arrears of income-tax against one Parasarani Gupta, was disallowed by the Tax Recovery Officer. The petitioner's remedy lay in filing a suit under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 11. The petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP62; 2002(1)MPHT84; 2002(2)MPLJ195
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. This batch of Writ Petitions (W.P. Nos. 3547 of 2001. M.P. Cement, v. State of M.P. and Ors., 3911 of 2001, Anant Spinning Mills Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 3912 of 2001, Moral Overseas Limited v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 3926 of 2001, Ritspin Synthetics Limited v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 3928 of 2001, Pratibha Syntex Limited v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 3929 of 2001, Maikaal Fibres Limited v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 3933 of 2001, Nahar Spinning Limited v. The State of M.P. and Ors, 3940 of 2001, National Steel Industries Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 3941 of 2001, Parasrampuria International Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 3970 of 2001, Century Textiles and Industrial Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Anr., 4020 of 2001, Hind Syntex Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 4292 of 2001, J.K. Industries Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 4549 of 2001, Grasim Industries Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors., 4563 of 2001, Flex Chemicals ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT179
A.K. Mishra, J. 1. Petitioners are workers' union. The prayer made in the instant writ petition is to quash the award passed by the arbitrator Shri Digvijay Singh, Chief Minister of M.P. relating to dispute of removal of daily wages employees.Main question for consideration in the writ petition is whether Public Works Department and other departments of State of M.P. can be treated 'industry' under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The services of the daily rated workmen employed in Madhya Pradesh after 31-12-1988 in different departments of State of M.P. and various local authorities were ordered to be terminated by the Govt. of M.P., a memorandum (P-1) dated 14the February, 2000 was issued for removing all the daily wage employees appointed after 31-12-88 on the ground that a memorandum dated 15-9-89 was issued which contained direction not to fill up the posts which were vacant as on 1st January, 1988 and the ban on making the appointments out of contingency fund was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP96; 1999(1)MPLJ148
A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a Public Interest Litigation whereby the petitioner has prayed that the notification prohibiting sale of general salt should be quashed and a direction should be issued that the public should not be forced to consume iodized salt.2. The petitioner is a doctor by profession and has brought this cause before this Court that poor people of India who are living mostly below the poverty line cannot afford to have the iodized salt which is expensive and therefore the action taken by the State in prohibiting the sale of general salt without iodine which is cheaper is bad. It is contended that the public at large is forced to consume iodized salt, cost of which is affordable by the people who are above poverty line. It is also pointed out that the iodized salt is ten times more costly than the ordinary salt in the market. It is alleged that it is nothing but a device to benefit the multi national companies to control this industry also.3. The Government of India ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1987(11)ECC113; 1987(11)LC19(MP); 1987(30)ELT62(MP)
J.S. Verma, Ag. C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 311 of 1982, both of which relate to the same petitioner and involve substantially the same point for decision.2. The petitioner-company has a factory at Kumhari in district Durg in the State of Madhya Pradesh and another at Ambarnath in the State of Maharashtra, where it manufactures sulphuric acid as well as oleum. We are concerned in these petitions only with the manufacture of these chemicals at the factory at Kumhari and the payment of excise duty thereon. During the relevant period, the sulphuric acid manufactured by the petitioner-company at Kumhari was used mainly for captive consumption to manufacture fertilizers and other goods and a small part alone was sold as sulphuric acid itself while the entire quantity of oleum manufactured at Kumhari was used for captive consumption to manufacture other goods. The price lists submitted by the petitioner company showing the assessable value of sulphuric acid and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP307; [1960(1)FLR326]; (1960)IILLJ543MP
Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition by the Managing Director of the company named Sir Sarupchand Hukum-chand (Private) Ltd., under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is directed against the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Madhya Pradesh and Additional Inspector of Factories both of Ujjain.2.The only question raised in this petition is as regards the vires of the Provisions, which were initially brought into force by means of the Ordinance No. IV of 1957 dated 27-4-1957 issued by the President of India, giving them retrospective effect from 1-12-1956 and which later were enacted by the Parliament and became a part of the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as Section 25FFF. The said Provision is as follows:'1. Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure, shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ1275MP; 1999(2)MPLJ139
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, has assailed the order dated April 30, 1994 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in case No. 28/94 whereby the said Authority held that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to the gratuity amounting to Rs. 66,450.2. The facts as have been uncurtained in the petition are that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to the establishment of the petitioner. As per Section 4 of the Act, an employee is entitled to the gratuity to the maximum limit of Rs. 50,000. Later on, an amendment was brought on the Statute Book on April 24, 1994 enhancing the maximum limit to Rs. 1 lakh. Keeping in view the aforesaid amendment the Apex Bank, namely, M.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, Bhopal issued a circular on April 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1987(11)ECC296; 1987(13)LC51(MP); 1985(19)ELT329(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, Madhumilan Syntex Private Ltd. which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and of whom petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director owns a factory at Biora wherein they manufacture spun yarn. This product is covered by Item 18, Schedule 1 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. According to the petitioners in the manufacture of their product, they use as raw material cellulosic fibre and non-cellulosic waste. By blending and processing of these raw materials, the final products spun yarn is produced. Therefore, the product falls in para (i) of Item 18-III of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Further according to the petitioners their product does not contain any man-made fibre of non cellulosic origin and, therefore, they have been classifying the product by paying the duty in accordance with the Tariff Item 18-III(i) of the said Act.3. That respondent No. 4 by a demand notice dated 7th February, 1984 (Annex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1987(11)ECC118; 1987(10)LC688(MP); 1987(30)ELT81(MP)
J.S. Verma, Ag. C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 2449 of 1983. Both these petitions are between the same parties and involve the same point for decision.2. The petitioner-company is (a) manufacturer of portland cement. A dispute arose between the parties whether for the period from 1st October, 1975 to 8th January, 1976, the cost of packing in gunny bags could be included in the value for charging excise duty on cement under Section 4(4XdXi) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner's contention that the cost of packing ought not to be included in the value for purpose of charging excise duty on cement being rejected by the respondents, Misc. Petition No. 704 of 1976 was filed in this Court by the petitioner to assail that decision. The petitioner had also paid duty on the cost of packing under protest for the period from 30th October, 1975 to 8th January, 1976, even though no such duty had been paid for the period from 1st October, 1975 to 29t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR713]; (2001)ILLJ1323MP
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is to a letter dated April 15, 1987 (Annexure A), notice dated September 13, 1989 (Annexure B), letter dated April 2, 1990 (Annexure C), demand dated April 5, 1991 (Annexure D) and R.R.C. dated December 11, 1990 (Annexures E and F). These demands are raised under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (1948). Facts in brief that led to riling of this writ need mention.2. The petitioner a Limited Company has their one factory at Industrial Area in Ratlam as defined under Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short called ESI Act), whereas, the petitioner falls in the definition of Principal Employer as defined under Section 2(17) ibid. In other words, the petitioner is liable to comply with the provisions of the ESI Act for the employees working in their factory.3. On April 15, 1987, by Annexure A, the respondent (ESI Authoritie...
Tag this Judgment!