Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1990)ILLJ583MP; 1988MPLJ640
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. In this matter, we had passed an interim order on 5th September 1988, since reported in 1988 MPLJ 640. By that order, we decided the general question as to whether all petitions concerning 'service matters' filed in this Court at this Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution would stand automatically 'transferred' to the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, for short, the 'Tribunal', established on and from 2nd August 1988. We took the view that Benches of the said Tribunal not being established at the existing 'seats' of this Court such as this Bench, there would be no automatic transfer of those cases to the 'principal seat' of the Tribunal established at Jabalpur under State Government Notification dated 28th August 1988.2. Accordingly, the instant petition as also other petitions involving 'service matters' have been retained at this Bench's Registry, to be dealt with in accordance with the directions made by us in the order passed on 5th September 1988. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2004CriLJ94
S.L. Kochar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 22nd June, 1996, all these 17 appellants, have preferred this appeal against their conviction for commission of murder of four persons, by Sessions Judge, Shajapur in S.T. No. 236/94 convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC sentence to R.I. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each also under Section 148 of IPC, R.I. for two years and under Section 307/149 of IPC R.I. for 5 years each, Jail sentences were directed to be run concurrently and in default of payment of fine further S.I. for one year each. It has also been ordered by trial Court about its equal distribution of total amount of fine among the widows of four deceased persons and in the event of non-availability of widows, to the mothers of the deceased as compensation.2. The prosecution case before the trial Court in short was that on 19-4-1994, all 4 deceased persons named Bafati Khan, Bahadur K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1987)66CTR(MP)83; [1988]171ITR59(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that since penalty proceedings were not initiated during the course of the regular assessment proceedings but were initiated while revising the assessment under Section 155(1) of the Income-tax Act, the levy of penalty under Section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act is bad in law '2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:The assessees are partners in a registered firm. They filed returns of income for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77 declaring their share income from the firm. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessments and did not initiate any action against the assessees under Section 273 of the Act. L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP183
T.P. Naik, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the proprietor of the 'Bhartiya Bhandar' whose Hindi publication 'Naya Sahitya Sourabha', parts 1 to 4, hadbeen sanctioned and prescribed as one of the text books in 'Hindi' for the middle school classes in Mahakoshal in the syllabus of studies for classes V to VIII of the middle school for the academic year 1958-59 by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter called the Board).His main complaint is that the State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent No. 1) and the Director of Public Instruction (respondent No. 2) have -- vide notification, dated 1-6-1958, (Annexure E) -- changed the said syllabus of the course of studies for the year 1958-59 and onwards for the middle school classes and substituted a new syllabus in contravention of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Regulations made thereunder (hereinafter called the Regu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT147; 2006(1)MPLJ97
Abhay Naik, J.1. The appeal is directed against order dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in M.J.C. No. 5/97, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 1-7-1995, has been rejected.2. It is unnecessary to burden the case with the facts giving rise to the judgment and decree in favour of State Bank of India, except that in Civil Suit No. 96-B/94, the present appellant (defendant therein) was served with summons who participated in the proceedings of the Civil Suit through an Advocate duly engaged by him. He, however, stopped taking part in the proceedings and remained absent. Consequently, an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against him on 1st July, 1995.3. The appellant submitted an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside judgment and decree on the ground that he had become 'Sadhu' in February, 1988 and had proceeded on pilgrimage. He came ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(MP)608; [2006]281ITR52(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in absence of any corresponding amendment in the definition of Section 2(47), there does not arise any liability of capital gains on the firm on the death of one of the partners, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 3,40,198 made by the AO ?'2. The facts which are essential to be adumbrated are that the assessee was a partnership firm that consisted of two partners, namely, Ravinder Singh and Pritam Singh. Pritam Singh expired on 19th April, 1990. After the death of one of the partners, for the asst. yr. 1991-92, the case of the assessee-firm was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 27th Feb., 1992. The AO referred to the order-sheet dt. 13th Aug., 1993 whereby the assessee was asked that since the firm stood dissolved after the death of one of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ691MP; 2001(2)MPHT383
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The petitioner-Society has challenged the common order Annexure P-l passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Gratuity Appeal No. 16/99 to 39/99, by which the order dated 19-2-1999 passed under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act by the Controlling Authority holding that the respondent No. 2 in each case, being a retired teacher, was entitled to gratuity, has been affirmed and the appeals filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the M.P. Societies Registration Act and, inter alia, runs a school in which the respondent No. 2 was a teacher who retired long back on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, prior to the notification dated 3-4-1997 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, the educational institu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ171
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm whereas petitioner No. 2 is its managing partner. The firm carries on the business of manufacturing bidis in the State of M.P. The Assistant Labour Commissioner filed application Under Sections 15(2) and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act stating therein that the petitioners did not pay bonus to its workmen in accordance with law. On receipt of the notice the petitioners filed their objection before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Objections of the petitioners were that application having been filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, ought not to have taken cognizance of the same and proceeded with the matter. It was further contended that the claim made in the application was barred by limitation and bonus being not a wage, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The aforesaid objections of the petitioners were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1983]143ITR969(MP)
Oza, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for answering the question :' Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake apparent on record in the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal as withdrawn '2. The facts as stated by the Appellate Tribunal are that the assessee is a firm and was granted registration in the assessment year 1969-70 but for the assessment year under appeal, i. e., 1971-72, the assessee filed a declaration in Form No. 12 seeking continuation of registration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act. This declaration was not filed within the prescribed time and an application explaining the reasons for the delay and seeking condonation was filed. The ITO refused to condone the delay and completed the assessment taking the status of the assessee as an unregistered firm. The assessee, in its appeal against the order of assessment, raised the ground of status as well. The AA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitle...
Tag this Judgment!