Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP316
Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State Government against the respondent Singhai Kapoorchand challenging the decree passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Seoni, in Civil Suit No. 6-B of 1954.2. Shri E. B. Reinboth, Sub-Divisional Officer, Seoni, was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. The claim has been decreed against him also; but no appeal has been filed on his behalf, nor has he been impleaded by the State Government as a respondent in this appeal.3. The facts in the case are not in dispute. Respondent Singhai Kapoorchand was the lambardar of Patti No. 2 in Mouza Mohgaon in Seoni Tahsil till 31-3-1951' when the proprietary rights vested in the State under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951). There was forest growth on the lands belonging to the respondent. A report was made against him in the year 1949 alleging that the trees were being cut in contravention of the rules framed under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1961CriLJ121
ORDERP.R. Sharma, J.1. This order shall govern Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 116, 117. and 118 of 1960 also.2. A case under Section 307, I.P.C. was registered by the Madhoganj police against the present petitioner Sukhlal and his three brothers Gulabsingh, Beharilal and Khuman. Before their arrest could be effected all the four persons named above applied to the Sessions Judge Gwalior Under Section 498 Cri. P. G. for being released on bail. Their applications were rejected on the sole ground that as they had not been put under arrest no order for bail could be granted.The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with at some length the decision of Hemeon, J. in the case of State v. Hasan Mohammad AIR 1951 Nag 471 and a recent decision of this Court in Abdul Karim v. State, : AIR1960MP54 . He has preferred to follow the decision of Hemeon, J. I do not feel called upon in the present case to pro-nounce upon the propriety of the course adopted by the learned Sessions Judge. I would only like to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP340; [1962]32CompCas896(MP)
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 186 or the Companies Act made by Radhelal Khaitan praying that this Court may order an extraordinary meeting of the Pasari Flour Mills Ltd., Bhilsa to be held under the directions of this Court. The Pasari Flour Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company) is a public limited company which was incorporated on November 16, 1937, under the Gwalior State Companies Act of Samvat 1963. The registered office of the Company is at Vidisha (Bhilsa) in the erstwhile Gwalior State, now in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The authorised share capital of the company is 5 lakhs divided into 5000 ordinary -shares of tile face value of Rs. 100/- each. The petitioner is a share-holder. The company is now governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the 'Act').2. It is stated in the petition that M/s. Ram Narain Prem Sukh and Sons (consisting of Birmadutt Premsukh and Keshavdeo Premsukh) were appointed managing agents of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1962]44ITR242(MP)
DIXIT C.J. - In this reference under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act the question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal is :'Whether, having regard to section 2 (11) (i) (a) read with its proviso, the assessee is entitled to take the year ended March 31, 1950, as the previous year for the purpose of the assessment year 1950-51 in respect of a source of income, the income from which was computed according to Maru year ended with Diwali for the earlier assessment years for the purpose of determining the assessees total world income for those years ?'The facts which give rise to the question are as follows : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family with its head office at Indore and branches at several places. It derives its income from property, business in cotton and oil seeds, speculation, dividends, managing agency commissions, etc. Prior to the assessment year 1950-51, which is the assessment year in question, the family was assessed in the status of a non-resident Hindu undi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP158
P.K. Tare, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor, against the order, dated 7-3-1960, passed by Sri H. D. Jha. Second Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in Civil Appeal No. 11--B oi 1950, affirming the order, dated 18-11-1959, passed by Sri L. P. Agarwala, Civil Judge, Second Class, Sausar, in execution proceedings arising out of a transferred decree, passed by the Munsiff, Allahabad, in Civil Suit No. 233 of 1944, dated 22-12-1945.2. The respondent, after obtaining a decree for Rs. 2774/9/- and costs amounting to Rs. 426/6/6 and interest at the rate of Rs. 4/8/- per cent per annum on' the decretal amount, filed an execution application in the Allahabad Court on 25-11-1948 and also prayed for transfer of the decree to the District Court at Chhindwara for the purpose ot execution as the appellant lives within the jurisdiction of that Court. By order, dated, 20-1-1949, the Court passed an order transferring the decree for execution to the District Court, Chhindwara. But in pursua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP320; [1961]12STC825(MP)
Shrivastava, J.1. This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the Additional District Judge, Satna, on 29-7-1957.2. The appellant, who was a dealer in Satna, was liable to be assessed to sales tax in accordance with the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, as applied to Vindhya Pradesh. According to the rules framed for payment of sales tax, it was necessary for him to file a return of his turnover during every quarter along with a deposit of the tax payable on the amount of turnover so disclosed. Accordingly, for the last two quarters of the year 1950 he made the necessary deposit.Assessment for these periods was made on 27-9-1951 and 28-9-1951 (Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4) and the appellant was found entitled to a refund of Rs. 209-11-0 and Rs. 290-4-0 respectively for the two quarters. In spite of applications being filed for refund of the amount, the appellant was not paid back the amounts. For the first quarter of the year 1951,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP28
Newaskar, J. 1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the purchase of the disputed property viz., the eight annas share in the partnership concern known as Madhav Cotton Press, is vitiated as regards the plaintiffs 1/5th share therein by Section 66 C. P. G.2. The plaintiff Ratanlal filed the present suit against defendants Seth Laxminarayan, Seth Kanhaiyalal and the Firm Nazarali Alabux for dissolution of partnership and for accounts on the allegations that the eight annas share in the aforesaid concern owned by Hal Saheb Seth Mulchand proprietor of the Firm Pannalal Ganeshdas had been put up for auction in execution of a decree against him; that while the auction sale was in progress five persons including (1) the plaintiff Ratanlal, (2) defendant No. 1 Laxminarayan, (3) Munnixlalji the father of defendant No. 2, (4) Basantilal Palwia, the Munim of the Firm Tilokchand Kalyanmal and (5) Lalji Bhai, agreed that each should contribute his l/5th share of money required for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1961]12STC502(MP)
ORDERT.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner requests for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders Ex. P-l, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3, which have been passed by the Sales Tax Authorities assessing him to pay sales tax for the period 20th October, 1949, to 9th November, 1950.2. The petitioner had taken some forest contracts during the assessment period and extracted timber for sale. He furnished a return of the timber sold. The accounts produced by the petitioner with the return were not properly kept and did not sufficiently disclose the sales made. The Sales Tax Officer did not, therefore, accept the return and proceeded to assees according to his 'best judgment' as provided in Section 11(4) of the Sales Tax Act. He held that the sales during the assessment period amounted to Rs. 4,50,000 and ordered the dealer to pay tax amounting to Rs. 11,371-14-0 only (Ex. P-l). The petitioner went up in appeal and the Assistant Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP336
Krishnan, J.1. These are two appeals by the plaintiff from orders dismissing his restoration applications under Order 9 Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code in two suits, in both, not on merits, but on the ground that judgments of dismissal of suits had been passed under Order 17 Rule 3 (and not under Order 17 Rule 2); so that, the plaintiff should have filed regular appeals from the decrees dismissing the suit. In reply, the defendants-respondents in both the suits have raised a preliminary ground that these appeals are prima facie time barred and the delay cannot be condoned by the fact of the appellant having prosecuted the appeal's in good faith in the wrong Court, namely, that of the District Judge.Such a ground could, in a suit, be raised under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; in an appeal, this can be urged under Section 5 of that Act as 'sufficient cause' why the delay should be condoned. In fact the parties have argued about this point of limitation more elaborately than the merits of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP223
ORDERTare, J. 6. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor against the order, dated 7-11-1959, passed by Shri S.N. Chaturvedi, Additional District Judge, Panna, in Execution Case No. 2 of 1959, arising out of the execution proceedings, relating to Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1955, and Civil Revision No. 59 of 1955, decided by the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner of the former State of Vindhya Pradesh on 23-12-1955.7. This appeal, involves a question of limitation only. The question arises under the following circumstances :The Judicial Commissioner Vindhya Pradesh, by order, dated 23-12-1955, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 85 o 1955 and Civil Revision No. 59 of 1955, allowed the same with costs and set aside the decree and order of the court below. Although the judgment and the order were delivered on 23-12-1955, no decree was drawn up till 26-10-1956. On that date, a decree was drawn up and signed in the appeal. As no decree was required to be drawn up in the revision...
Tag this Judgment!