Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981MP129; 1981MPLJ244
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. By order dated 2nd April, 1980 the State Government made Rules for admission to 1st year M, B. B. S. course of medical colleges of Madhya Pradesh. These rules are not statutory. They were made in the exercise of the executive power of the State. The rules provide for holding of a Pre-Medical Examination for selection at candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges. The Pre-Medical Examination is held by a Board which is constituted by Rule 2. The selection for admission is made as provided in Rule 3 'from the merit-list prepared on the basis of the result of this examination.' No candidate can be admitted unless he has passed B. Sc. Part I or any equivalent examination. This is the minimum educational qualification prescribed by Rule 5 (1). Reservation of seats is provided for by Rule 7. There are 720 seats in all. Out of these, 15% seat19As are reserved for each of the categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, which means that 108 seats are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2005)195CTR(MP)210; [2005]278ITR122(MP)
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. This reference is made by the single Bench to decide the following question of law :Whether collection of tax at source under Section 206C of the IT Act on the price of liquor shall include excise duty paid for purchase of liquor ?2. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar Rathore v. Union of India (Writ Petn. No. 2325 of 1996 decided on 30th Nov., 1999). This judgment was delivered relying upon the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (Writ Petn. No. 1042 of 1995 decided on 12th Sept., 1996). Counsel for the petitioner submitted that these two judgments have been followed in another judgment of this Court in the case of Harvansh & Sons v. Union of India 2002 (4) MPLJ 495. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the costs of liquor will not include excise duty but will include the cost price of liquor. He submitted that under Section 206C of the IT Act (hereinafter, ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986MP165; 1986MPLJ261
J.S. Verma, Ag. C. J. 1. The only question for decision by us is whether an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is tenable against an interlocutory order passed in an election petition by a single Judge which amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression used in Clause 10. This question has to be answered on the assumption that the . right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent subsists notwithstanding the enactment of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam (29 of 1981) abolishing the right of such appeals since this enactment has been held to be constitutionally invalid by a Full Bench of this Court in Balkrishna Dass v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. AIR 1985 Madh Pra 42. In case it is held that such an appeal is tenable, the appeal has to be heard and decided on merits by a Division Bench which will also decide whether the impugned interlocutory order passed in the election petition amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR421]; 2001(1)MPHT481
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of a demand made by the respondent No. 3 (District Excise Officer, Khargone) asking the petitioner to pay entertainment tax at the enhanced monthly rate of Rs. 3,937/- in place of Rs. 1,687/- on the strength of an amendment made on 1-4-1991 in the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.2. Petitioner is having his V.C.R. Parlour in a Village-Gogawa in Tehsil Khargone in District West Nimad. The petitioner in his VCR Parlour (Premsukh Video House) was at all relevant time exhibiting films to public. Petitioner had taken licence for running and exhibiting films under the provisions of M.P. Cinema Regulation Act (Annexure P-l).This licence was being renewed from time to time as is clear from the endorsement made in the licence (Annexure P-l).3. Under Section 3 of M.P. Entertainmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(2005)DMC272; 2005(3)MPLJ484
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.10.2004 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria in S.T. No. 117/2004, whereby the direction for framing charges against the applicants under Sections 498/34, 304B and in alternative 306 of I.P.C. has been given and the same have been framed.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Mamta was married with applicant No. 2 Rakesh @ Gudda Sahrma before four years from the date of incident i.e., 14.7.2002. On this day deceased Mamta poured kerosene on herself and ablazed, immediately she was shifted to the Public Health Centre, Chandia and from where she was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur, during the treatment she succumbed to death due to burn injuries. As per procedure initially preliminary inquiry was held and on the basis of such inquiry Crime No. 166/02 was registered by Police Chandia on dated 3.10.2002 for offence under Sections 304B, 306/34 of I.P.C. against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)MPHT486
1. Appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 23-8-2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Barwaha District West Nimar confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-8-2001 in Civil Suit No. 11-A/95 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Sanawad.2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner and the landlord of the suit house situated at Village Barood and defendant Rameshchandra took the suit house on the monthly rent of Rs. 70/- and that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by registered notice dated 20-12-93 which was received by the defendant on 3-1-94. That the defendant has not paid the arrears of rent from 1-4-93 total Rs. 1610/- and as such the decree of possession and the arrears of rent be passed in favour of the plaintiff.3. The defendant has denied that he was tenant of the plaintiff in the suit house. Defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff has agreed to sell the suit land in Rs. 20,000/- and the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP205; [1970]76ITR404(MP); 1970MPLJ403
A.P. Sen, J.1. The question of law stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'A', at the instance of the Commissioner for the opinion of the Court is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 1,67,345 received by the assessee during the year under consideration is covered by the 2nd Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Section 5 of Finance Act, 1955.'2. The sum of Rs. 1,67,345/- represents the payment to the assessee, Capt. H.C. Dhanda on 28th January 1955 by His Highness Maharaja Yeshwant Rao Holkar, the Senior Up-Rajpramukh of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, in full and final settlement of his claim for damages for wrongful termination of his services as personal Adviser to his Highness. The whole question here is, were the moneys which the assessee so received after cessation of his office as compensation, in respect of which he was assessed for the year 1955-56, part of his in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990(0)MPLJ73
S. Awasthy, J.1. In village Naogaon, Tahsil Khurai, District Sagar, defendant No. 1 Mancharasha, who died during the pendency of this appeal; and was shown as respondent No. 2 in this appeal prior to his substitution on 20-4-1983, owned about 53 acres of land jointly with his brother Hoshangji. Apart from this, Hoshangji owned 24 acres of land in his individual name exclusively. A case under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (No. 20 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') bearing No. 95-A/90/2-B of 1974-75 was started. A statement was published under section 11(3) of the Act on 7-1-1976 in view of the order passed on 20-12-1975 vide Ex. P. 11. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed an objection on 23-3-1976 which was rejected on 21-5-1976. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, therefore, filed a suit on 21-7-1976 under section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act, but, during the pendency of the suit, the appellate authority set aside the order dated 20-12-1975 and reman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(4)MPHT64; 2005(1)MPLJ297
P.C. Agarwal, J.1. Appellant on 21-3-1973 filed a civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent. Initially, ground taken was one under Section 12(1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) that is for non-payment of arrears of rent despite service of demand notice hut that ground was given up during the trial. A fresh ground under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act that is dis-claimer of title by tenant was added by way of amendment. However, such ground for eviction did not find favour either of the Courts below.2. Admittedly, the respondent had executed a rent note (Ex. P-1) on 18-2-1966 in favour of the appellant. The respondent continued to pay rent to the appellant up till 31-1-1972. As per respondent Vijay Narayan Haksar, the brother of appellant had served a notice (Ex. D-2) claiming payment of rent from him on the ground that the suit shop had fallen in his share in partition with a copy of judgment of this Court in F.A. No. 9/1964 (Vijay Narayan Ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(3)MPHT451; 2000(2)MPLJ331
R.B. Dixit, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and Order dated 13-1-95 passed by Third Additional Judge to District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Suit No. 18/94, the plaintiffs/appellants have come up in appeal to this Court and prayed for hearing of the suit on merits.2. Appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit before District Judge, Vidisha for declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of a partnership firm styled as 'M/s. Vidisha Auto Service' to declare that it is an exclusive dealership of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 2 Indian Oil Corporation granted agency of kerosene oil in Vidisha District to the plaintiffs in the name of Vidisha Auto Service for petrol, diesel and mobi oil. Subsequently another retail outlet was opened in Dholkhedi which business was done in the sub-partnership with the name of Vidisha Auto Sales and Service. Initially, the partnership was constituted of two partners, namely; Ramswaroop Sharma, predecessor in title of the present p...
Tag this Judgment!