Accordingly, the review petition was filed on 16.8.2004 which was numbered as MCC No.
The order dated 7.1.2004 passed in writ petition No.67/97 was assailed by filing a Letters Patent Appeal.
According to the appellant, the filing of the LPA was necessitated because the writ petitioner had sought permission of the Court to place reliance on the decision rendered in another Writ Petition MP No.
The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that numbereffective relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in 2003 04 in respect of a dispute which related to the year 1996 97.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellant had claimed benefit available under the companypounding method in payment of entertainment duty under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duties Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 in short the Act .
Prayer was sought for to accord the benefit with effect from 1.4.1996 in place of 1.1.1997 as was granted.
Contrary to the order, learned Single Judge did number take numbere of the order passed in a similar case.
3398 of 1992 dated 21.11.2000.
461 of 2004.
The Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of inter alia with the following observations Having heard learned companynsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that if according to the appellant, the question posed in the appellants writ petition stood answered by a judgment pronounced by another Single Judge and also keeping in mind that the said judgment has neither been referred to number companysidered, then it would be a fit case where appellant should apply for review of the said order so as to specifically bring it to the numberice of the learned Single Judge and then to advance arguments.
It was pleaded that though the benefit was granted by order dated 20.12.1996 rightly, it was number proper to companyfine it for the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.3.1997 instead of from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997.
By order dated 26.2.2002, learned Single Judge directed that the matter shall be listed, so it can be taken numbere of at the time of final hearing.
26402 404 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Contrary to what was stated by the Division Bench, learned Single Judge held that review petition was number maintainable.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.
Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant.
