Madhya Pradesh Court January 1960 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sudershan Transport Service (Private) Ltd. Vs. State Transport Appella ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP233
Dixit, C.J.1. The petitioner in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ o certiorari to quash certain orders of the opponents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 is an association running stage carriages on various routes in Bilaspur district. On 30th August, 1958, the opponent No. 3, claiming itself to be a registered society under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, applied for a permit to ran a stage carriage on Bilaspur-Korba via Pamgarh and Champa route. The petitioner and other operators had also made applications earlier for permits to run carriages on different routes in Bilaspur district which were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on 11th and 12th August, 1958, on the ground that no survey of the traffic had been made and that it did not appear necessary to grant any additional permits on the routes concerned. On 28th October, 1958, the Regional Transport Authority resolved that a survey of traffic on, each route in various district...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Badrinarayan Rameshwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP194; [1960]39ITR94(MP)
Dixit, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 at the instance of the Commissioner. Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, and the question for decision is whether the assessee is liable to pay tax only at the reduced rates under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, on a sum of Rs. 2,96,143/-.2. The question relates to the assessment for tax purposes in the assessment year 1951-52 of the assesses Badrinarayan Rameshwar, who was resident of Indore in the Part-B State of former Madhya Bharat, during the material period. One Pyarelal Sakseria who also resided in Indore, was indebted to the assesses to the extent of Rs. 18,07,968/-. Under an agreement entered into in1946 between Pyarelal Sakseria and M/s. Famous Pictures Ltd., of Bombay, Pyarelal Sakseria advanced Rs. 17 lakhs to the Company on certain terms and was entitled to receive from the said Company a sum of Rs. 21,75,357/- on 21-10-1950. Pyarelal Sakseria assigned on 21-10-1950 all ...
Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP253
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.R. Contractor and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1960
Reported in: [1962]13STC208(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This reference under Section 13 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, by the Commissioner of Sales Tax relates to. the assessment of sales tax during the assessment year 1953-54 on the assessee Messrs R. R. Contractor & Co., Indore. The three questions which the Commissioner has formulated and referred to this Court for decision are :-(1) Whether washer is an article for the purpose of item No. 32 of Schedule No. 3 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act.(2) Whether leather belts are articles for the purpose of item No. 32 of Schedule No. 3 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act.(3) Since kerosene is exempted from Madhya Bharat Sales Tax, and since kerosene is purchased in tins and sold in tins whether these tins are exempted from sales tax.2. The taxing authorities have taken the view that the sales tax payable by the assessee on leather washers and belts sold would be according to item No. 32 of Schedule No. 3 issued under Section 5 of the Act. According to this sc...
Gulabchand Gappalal Sarawgi Vs. Manikchand Gulabchand Sarawgi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP263
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a second appeal under Section 325 of the Zabta Diwani, Gwalior, relating to three disputes between two neighbours whose properties are adjacent to each others, separated by a common wall. The suit was in respect of three items : (1) a portion of the common wall was raised by the defendant so that a pator was converted into a room, (2) the defendant constructed eaves on the common wall overhanging on the plaintiff's premises and, (3) the defendant opened a ventilator and three windows which overlooked the plaintiff's house. The suit was resisted by the defendant on all counts. It will be convenient to deal separately with the three items in dispute.2. The plaintiff claimed the wall to be a joint property of the parties and the trial Judge found in his favour. The first appellate court also found that the common wall was a joint property, but it held that the raised portion of the wall belonged to the defendant only. In his appeal the plaintiff claims the raised ...
Rajkumarsingh Vs. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP307; [1960(1)FLR326]; (1960)IILLJ543MP
Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition by the Managing Director of the company named Sir Sarupchand Hukum-chand (Private) Ltd., under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is directed against the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Madhya Pradesh and Additional Inspector of Factories both of Ujjain.2.The only question raised in this petition is as regards the vires of the Provisions, which were initially brought into force by means of the Ordinance No. IV of 1957 dated 27-4-1957 issued by the President of India, giving them retrospective effect from 1-12-1956 and which later were enacted by the Parliament and became a part of the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as Section 25FFF. The said Provision is as follows:'1. Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure, shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), b...
S.S. Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP293
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against certain orders passed and action taken in the case of the Petitioner who was in service under the State Government.2. The petitioner was substantively employed in class I service as Economic Botanist to the State Government. A departmental enquiry was started against him on 4th December, 1951, when charges were sent to him. The enquiry dragged on for more than a year. On 24th April, 1952, while the enquiry was pending, he was informed that he was due to retire on 14th April, 1953, and that he might, if he liked, apply for leave preparatory to retirement. About seven months later, on 6th November. 1952, to be more precise, the petitioner wrote to say that he would avail of the leave after termination of the enquiry.Thereupon, on 11th November, 1952, he was intimated that leave Preparatory to retirement, if due, might be availed of without waiting for the departmental enquiry to conclude. The pe...
Manohar Bhima Sirvi and anr. Vs. Gangaram Varmaji Tamoli
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP232
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the legal representatives of one Bhima from the order of the first appellate court, allowing the appeal of the opposite party. That was from the order of the executing court allowing Bhima's representatives to execute the decree in a suit, passed by the first appellate court (District Judge, Mandleshwar) on the finding that the High Court's second appellate decree was not binding on these applicants, as the second appeal itself had abated as against Bhima, their predecessor in interest. The first appellate court's decision on this was that it could be considered only by the High Court before whom, it was alleged, that the appeal had abated, and not by the executing court which is competent only to execute the decree made finally in that litigation.2. The relevant facts, which are complicated, can be summarised thus: Many years ago, one Ghisa Sirvi purchased certain lands, the identity of which is not in dispute, in a court-auction for a sum of R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›