Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-23-1995
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
Decided on : Aug-23-1995
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ141
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. First respondent herein filed a complaint before the Special Court, Bhind under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) alleging that the petitioner and second respondent committed offences punishable under Section 342, Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Special Court took cognizance and issued process. The revision petitioner challenges this order contending that since the Sessions Court has been specified as the Special Court, it cannot take cognizance of any offence without committal order by a competent Magistrate.2. The earliest decision of this Court on this controversy is one by Pandey, J. in Sukhlal Jatav v. State of M. P., 1993 MPLJ 875, 1993 JLJ 679 taking the view that a case under the Act cannot be committed to the Special Court and the Special Court is a Court of original Jurisdiction and is entitled to take cognizance without committal. Hon. Dwivedi, J. in Me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-08-1995
Reported in : 1995(51)ECC102; 1995LC40(MP); 1995(80)ELT774(MP)
ORDER1. This appeal and the other connected appeals have been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 8-9-1994 in M.P. No. 779/89, M.P. No. 1099/88, M.P. No. 1101/88, M.P. No. 1356/88, M.P. No. 932/90, M.P. No. 933/90 and M.P. No. 1076/90, by which show cause notices issued to the Respondents in all the cases by the appellant No. 3, the Additional Collector, Central Excise, have been quashed.2. This order shall also govern disposal of L.P.A. No. 15/95, L.P.A. No. 132/94, L.P.A. No. 133/94, L.P.A. No. 134/94, L.P.A. No. 135/94 and L.P.A. No. 136/94, as common questions of law and facts were involved in all these appeals.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are mentioned herein below. The respondents in these appeals (petitioners in the main petitions) had constructed sheds in their respective factories with the aid of duty paid product and material. The sheds were built with the help of trusses, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-29-1995
Reported in : AIR1996MP116
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. In some of these writ petitions, provisions of Entry Tax Act, 1976 (for short the Act) are challenged as unconstitutional. In all the writ petitions, except M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, the notification dated 29-6-1990 of the State Government issued under Section 4-A (2) of the Act specifying local areas in goods for imposition of entry tax at the rate of 10% for limestone and levy and collection of such entry tax are challenged. In M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, levy of entry tax at similar rate on entry of limestone within a local area are challenged. In M. P. No. 1521 of 1991, similar levy of entry-tax into a local area is challenged- In some of the writ petitions, subsequent notification dated 2-2-1994 is challenged. 2. We have heard various counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged the following points for consideration : (i) The impugned notifications relate to lime (stone) and not l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-10-1995
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ710
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. We will briefly refer to the facts in M. P. No. 3113 of 1987. The petitioner on 13-10-1982 submitted an application to the State Government for grant of mining lease for extraction of ochre and white-clay in 10.374 hectares of land. The application was submitted under Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 framed by the Central Government under Section 13 of the Act. The Act was amended by Central Act No. 37 of 1986 which came into force with effect from 10-2-1987. Consequently the Rules were also amended and the amendments were brought into force with effect from 10-2-1987. On 1-10-1983, the State Government rejected the application. The petitioner filed a representation before the Central Government which set aside the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-06-1995
Reported in : I(1996)ACC476; 1996ACJ575; AIR1996MP184; 1996(0)MPLJ503
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. (On I. A. No. 4763/95) Shri S. Patwa for Appellant. Shri S. V. Dandvate for Respondent No. 4. Other respondents are absent. None present for them.2. This application has been preferred for bringing the legal representatives of deceased claimant on record. During the course of argument it has been noticed by the learned counsel for the L.Rs. of deceased claimant that there has been delay in making the prayer for bringing the L.Rs. on record. He prays for condoning the said delay in view of recent amendment in provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M. V. Act for convenience). Shri Dandvate, counsel for respondent No. 4 also admitted that there has been recent amendment in the provisions of M.V. Act whereby time limit of six months which was in existence previously has been removed in respect of filing of fresh application for getting the compensation. There cannot be any debate on the point that provisions of M.V. Act are benevolent and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-08-1995
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ1040MP; 1996(0)MPLJ493
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri S.V. Dandvate for the appellant, New India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company). Shir J.C. Rawal for respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No. 4 absent. None present for him. Shri R.C. Maheshwari for respondent No. 5.All of them have been heard on the merit of the matter.This appeal assails the award passed by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dewas who decided, W.C.F.Case No. 5 of 1988 on February 11, 1992 by passing the award under challenge. On January 1, 1981 deceased Abid, the driver driving truck No. MPM 5414 was proceeding towards Kantaphod, Unfortunately, the axle of the said truck was damaged and, therefore, for the purpose of repairing it, he proceeded to Kantaphod by truck No. MPF 7181. The said truck unfortunately toppled down. As a result, Abid sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. Respondents 1 to 3 initially filed claim against driver, owner and insurer of truck bearing number MPF 7181 claiming comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-03-1995
Reported in : 1997CriLJ27
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. These revision petitions have been referred to a Division Bench by I. P. Rao, J., doubting the correctness of the view taken by N. P. Singh, J., in Cr. Rev. No. 146 of 1990. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Advocate representing the State.2. These revision petitions arise out of separate prosecutions under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short' the Act') in Sagar and Jabalpur districts respectively. The trial Courts in the two cases convicted and sentenced the accused and the convictions and sentences were upheld by the appellate Court. The accused thereupon filed the revision petitions.3. Section 16A incorporated in the Act by Amendment Act No. 34 of 1976 with effect from 1st April 1976 requires that all offences under Section 16(1) shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-14-1995
Reported in : [1996]219ITR19(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The applicant (Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bhopal), has filed this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the proposed question of law as extracted below :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 1976, is procedural in nature and is applicable to all the pending assessments including the assessments prior to the assessment year 1976-77 ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee on the valuation date, i.e., March 31, 1973, was the owner of a house property with open land situated at 60, R.S. Bhandari Marg, Indore. The value of the property was shown in the return at Rs. 2,80,000 as per the report of an approved valuer. The Wealth-tax Officer referred the matter of valuation to the Valuation Officer under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-29-1995
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ567
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. State has filed .the revision against certain directions issued by the Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial Case No. 166 of 1991.2. Learned Sessions Judge tried four accused on charges under Sections 302, 302 read with Sections 34, 307 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted first accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life on him and convicted third accused under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment of three months on him. Other accused were acquitted of all charges. Third accused was acquitted of other charges. Learned Sessions Judge further directed -(i) that first accused shall pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the 18 year old widow of the victim Kalyan and since recovery may be delayed or may not be possible for the present, the State shall pay this amount to her and recover it from the properties of the first accused;(ii) The State shall also...
Tag this Judgment!