Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)215CTR(MP)521
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an IT reference made under Section 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter called as 'Tribunal') in R.A. No. 77/78/Ind/1996, which in turn arise out of an order, dt. 30th Sept., 1996 passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 498/Ind/1992 and ITA No. 806/Ind/1994 and later amended by Tribunal in Misc. Appln. Nos. 33/Ind/1996 and 34/Ind/1996, dt. 31st Jan., 1997 by invoking the powers of rectification under Section 254 of the Act for answering following two questions of law said to arise out of the two orders referred supra:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and restoring the matter to the file of the AO to decide the issue to assess the income from the bequeathed property in the proper hands instead of deleting the said income from the hands of the assessee as there was no connection of the assessee HUF with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT134
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This revision has been preferred under Section 19 of the M.P.Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' for short), challenging award dated 1.1.1997 passed by M.P.Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in reference case No. 54/1991. 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner Dharamdas Nechlani was awarded a percentage rate contract for construction of drainage syphon at R.D.12,800 at Bargi left bank main canal group No. 3. The amount of work put to the contract was Rs. 2.92 lakhs and the stipulated period for completion of work was 10 months excluding four months of rainy season. The petitioner quoted 104% above C.S.R. for steel work and 40% above C.S.R. for other items of the schedule in the agreement. An agreement No. 11/80-81 was executed between the parties and work order was issued to the petitioner on 29.1.1981. The due date of completion of work was 2.4.1982. The syphon was initially proposed to be constructed at R.D.12,800, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT514; 2008(1)MPLJ189
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Short facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners' father was a money-lender of Shahdol district for more than 30 years. After his death, petitioner continued with the business of money lending. He obtained licence for money lending by getting himself registered under the provisions of Money Lenders Act, 1934. Licence was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17-3-1998 for a period of two years by Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotma, District Shahdol as revealed in Annexure P-2. It was extended from time to time, lastly on 29-3-2006 for a period from 30-10-2004 to 29-10-2006 as revealed on the back side of Annexure P-2. Last extension/renewal was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer, District Anuppur. It is pertinent to mention here that on formation of District Anuppur, Tehsil Kotma was made a part of it.2. Sub Divisional Officer, Kotma, issued a notice dated 20-11-2006 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner requiring him to provide certain informat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP269; 2007(3)MPHT388; 2007(3)MPLJ595
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J. and Dipak Misra, J.1. Perceiving two conflicting views, one expressed in Smt. Shiva Dubey (Jheera) v. Sumit Ranjan Dubey (Jheera) (W.A. No. 310/06), Lakhan Lal Sonkar v. Gun Carriage Factory, 2007(1) M.P.H.T. 335 and State of M.P. v. M.S. Wakankar (2007) 1 MPLJ 99 and the other in Mis. Ram and Co. v. State of M.P. and Anr. W.A. No. 342/06 : 2007(3) M.P.H.T. 325 (DB) pertaining to the maintainability of writ appeal under the provision of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') the Division Bench referred the matter to the Larger Bench to put the controversy to rest and further to have the certitude in the field on certain parameters. Be it placed on record that the cavil relates to the bar provided under the proviso to Sub-section (1) to Section 2 of the Act as regards the entertain ability and acceptability of an appeal from an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this factual back...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP276; 2007(3)MPHT376; 2007(3)MPLJ565
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. On a preliminary objection advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the writ appeal preferred against the order dated 12-1-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17241/2006 is not maintainable being hit by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') a Division Bench hearing the appeal noticed that there are two sets of decisions pertaining to maintainability of an appeal under the Act in respect of interlocutory orders:-- (i) one holding that the appeals are maintainable under certain circumstances, and (ii) the other holding that no writ appeal would lie against any interlocutory order as the bar created by the proviso appended to Section 2 of the Act would come into play. Because of this situation the Division Bench has referred the following question for adjudication by a Larger Bench:Whether the proviso of Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009ACJ122; AIR2007MP232
Dipak Misra, J.1. This is an application for review/modification of the order dated 8-8-2005 passed in MA No. 226/1995. Suffice it to say, the said appeal was preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for brevity 'the Act') whereby the Union of India had called in question the pregnability of the judgment dated 30-10-1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal (in short 'the tribunal') in OA No. 5/98-A.2. This Court after referring to the definition contained under Section 123 (c) 'untoward incident' and the decision rendered in the case of P.A. Narayanan v. Union of India : [1998]1SCR899 expressed the opinion as under:10. In this context, we may fruitfully refer to the observations of the Apex Court made in the case of P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India : [1998]1SCR899 :There is common law duty of taking reasonable care which must be attached to all carriers including railways....Though the said observation was made on a different context...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(2008)BC546
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. M/s. A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by Shri Sanjay Garg Director, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, challenging communications made vide Annexure P/l dated 25.1.2007 by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 cancelling a contract granted for collection of user fee in National Highway No. 3, imposing of penalty of Rs. 2,41,097/- and forfeiting the performance security to the tune of Rs. 2,20,00,125/-, and letter Annexure P/2 dated 27.1.2005 issued by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to respondent No. 6. Bank seeking revocation of a Bank guarantee for Rs. 2,20,00,125. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that National Highways Authority of India is incorporated under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 (hereinabove referred to as 'Act 1988'). It is a Statutory Authority discharging functions as contemplated under the Act, 1988. The Act of 1988 and the National Highway...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2007)IIILLJ948MP; 2007(3)MPHT174; 2007(3)MPLJ355
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 82 of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') by appellant assailing the order dated 30-11-1999 passed by Employees' Insurance Court in Case No. 4/95 ESI Act.2. The appellant is registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and carries on the business of a restaurant in the name and style of M/s Manohar Dairy and Restaurant. An application has been filed by appellant under Section 75 of the Act before the Insurance Court challenging the legality and validity of three notices dated 3-2-1995,10-2-1995 and 13-3-1995 issued by the Regional Director of the respondent Employees' State Insurance Corporation whereby the Regional Director has demanded a sum of Rs. 80,988 towards insurance contribution in respect to the employees working in the establishment of appellant.3. The contention of appellant before the Insurance Court as well as before this Court is that the appellant establishment is not covered un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT316
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-4-2000 passed by ADJ, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 14/99 whereby the judgment and decree dated 18-4-2000 passed by VI Civil Judge Class II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 366-A/96 was set aside, the present appeal has been filed which has been admitted for final hearing on 22-1-2001 on the following substantial question of law:Whether the First Appellate Court has committed a patent illegality in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground of not asking for any declaration in the suit?2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession on 11-3-87 against the respondents alleging that suit property bearing House No. 20/4 situated at Ushaganj, Indore was of the ownership of Mulla Ibrahim Bhai, whose L.Rs. are respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It was alleged that suit property has been purchased by the appellant from Mulla Ibrahim vide registered sale d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT527
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioners are residents of Revenue District Anuppur, which was carved out from Revenue District Shahdol with effect from 15th August, 2003 by notification dated 11th August, 2003 of the State Govt, issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). They have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the elections of office bearers of Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Lampus Kotma, Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Devgawa & Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Maryadit Bhalmudi.2. Several grounds have been taken in the writ petition challenging the election of the office bearers of the three Co-operative Societies, but we cannot consider all such grounds in view of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam Sharma v. Chairman Sewa/Vriha Sahakari Samiti Lashkar, Gwalior and Ors. 1989 MPLJ 208, that normally the High Court...
Tag this Judgment!