Madhya Pradesh Court January 1961 Judgments
Dhanraj Virdichand and ors. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ43
ORDERS.B. Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of a prosecution of the applicants for a breach of the provisions of Rule 65(7) of the Rules framed under Section 26 of the M.B. Agricultural Produce Markets Act No. 17 of 1952.2. The applicants carried on trade in cotton, groundnut, cottonseeds and other agricultural products within the Kukshi Tehsil during the year 1.4.58 to 31.3.59. The Act mentioned above requires under Rule 65(1) a license to be taken by a person carrying on any business as a trader in agricultural produce, if it is carried on in any market area. The market area has been defined under the Act wss declared under Section 4. Kukshi Tehsil was declared as a market area under Government Notification No. 2242/13-C/516/54 dated 9.5.55 published in the M.B. Gazette Part I B dated 16.6.55.3. The prosecution allegation is that the applicants carried on business during the above mentioned period without taking a license as required under the Act.4. The applicants were examined by...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhmichand Muchhal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR315(MP)
DIXIT C.J. - In this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee, the question which we are required to answer is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 12,261, being the interest paid by the Indian Purchasers of goods for late payment of sale proceeds, accrued or deemed to accrue to the assessee in India under section 4 or 42 ?'The question relates to the assessment year 1947-48. The assessee is a dealer in cloth doing business in Indore. During the relevant year he sold cloth to purchasers in what was then British India. Indore was then a non-taxable territory. In respect of some of the sales the assessee charged to the purchasers interest because of the delay on the part of the purchasers in the payment of the sale proceeds. He obtained an amount of Rs. 12,261 by way of interest which was remitted to him at Indore. The Income-tax Officer held that this amount of interest accrued t...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of I.A.T. Warde Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P., Nagpur an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR219(MP)
DIXIT C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. The reference is at the instance of the assessee and relates to the assessment year 1955-56, the previous year being the financial year ending on March 31, 1955. The questions referred to us are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receiver was liable to be assessed under section 41(1) of the Act ?2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the assessment could be on the three executors as an association of persons or on the four persons consisting of the three executors and Shri Shukla ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receiver was liable to be assessed under section 3 read with section 10 of the Act in respect of the business at the rate applicable to the total income of the business or whether the beneficiaries should have been assessed directly under section 41(2) ?'The facts are ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanboo Kedar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP91
S.B. Sen, J.1. The two appellants Nanboo and Kutar have been convicted under Section 304 (Part II) and 304 (Part II) read with Section 114. I. P. C. and have been sentenced to Rule 1 for 6 years and 4 years respectively.2. On 14-3-1960 at about 9 a. m. there was a Puja known as 'Badawat' in the house of one Lalsingh P.W. 1, where many persons assembled including the two appellants, as well as Gulabingh P.W. 2, Jayram P. W. 3, Dalsingh P.W. 4, Kadu P.W. 5 and Bhilu P.W. 12. They all belonged to the same village. The deceased Ratan-singh also came there and sat in the assembly. His presence was however objected to by appellant No. 2 Kutar on the ground that lie had an illicit connection with the wife of his son Juwan-singh. Ratansingh's denial of the fact resulted in some quarrel at which Kutar asked his son Nanboo, appellant No. 1 to beat him. Nanboo accordingly took up a log of wood lying nearby and gave on the head of Ratan a heavy blow. Ratan fell down and. the two appellants ran awa...
Tag this Judgment!Khatumal Ghanshamdas Vs. Abdul Qadir JamaluddIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1961MP295
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a suitable direction restraining the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, from adjudicating upon a claim for compensation made by the opponent No. 1 Abdul Qadir in respect of a bodily injury caused to him by a truck owned by the petitioner and driven by the opponent No. 2 Lachhmandas on 24th August 1958. 2. The accident occurred on 24th August 1958 in Bhopal. The State Government constituted a tribunal for this area under Section 110 of the Act by the Home Department's Notification dated the 7th August 1959. The Tribunal was not in existence before this date. Before the constitution of the Tribunal, the opponent Abdul Qadir made an application on 20th August 1959 in the Court of the Additional District Judge Bhopal, for being allowed to sue as a pauper for claiming the relief of compensation of Rs. 41,080/- on account of the injury caus...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ahmadulla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ43
N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the dismissal of an appeal preferred by it to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench which declined to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge holding the respondent not guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The ground of acquittal by the Sessions Judge, which was concurred in by the High Court was that the respondent was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the crime and so was entitled to an acquittal under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.2. There is very little dispute about the facts or even about the construction of Section 84 of the Code because both the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Judges of the High Court on appeal have held that the crucial point of time at which the un-soundness of mind, as defined in that section, has to be established is when the act was committed. It is the application...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Ranglal Mahajan Vs. Mangilal Hiralal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP144
ORDERT.C. Shrivastava, J.1. This petition for revision has been filed by the defendant against the decree of the lower appellate Court accepting the claim of the respondents for refund of Rs. 325/- as sale consideration.2. The house to which the contract of sale related originally belonged to one Ahmad, who had mortgaged it with Motilal on 2-1.2-1939. Thereafter on 5-10-1944 Ahmad sold the house to one Babu & Babu mortgaged it in favour of Misrilal & others. In the year 1947-48 Motilal, the first mortgagee, brought a suit on the basis of his mortgage & obtained a decree for sale, in execution of which the house was sold and was purchased by the applicant Ganpat on 15-3-1948. The defendant Ganpat sold the house to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed on 18-6-1948. In the meantime, Misrilal and others, the second mortgagees, had brought a suit on 18-3-1948 for the enforcement of their mortgage and Ganpat was also impleaded as one of the defendants in this suit. The claim was decreed a...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram S/O Ghasiram Vs. Chameli Bai W/O Bhagwati Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1961MP310; 1962MPLJ14
P.R. Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated the 8th of April, 1959 passed in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1955 by the Addl. District Judge, Gwalior, whereby he held the appeal to be barredby time.2. The facts material for the present appeal are that the judgment of the trial Court in the present case was passed on the 30th of November, 1954; whereas the appeal was filed in the District Court on 14-2-1955 i.e. after, 76 days of the judgment appealed against. An application for a copy of the judgment was made by the present appellant on the 1st of December, 1954. He was directed by the head-copyist to pay the balance of the copying charges on 3-12-1954.The appellant did not turn up on that date, but instead deposited the remaining copying charges on the 7th of December, 1954. The copy was taken delivery of by him on the 17th of January, 1955. The learned Addl. District Judge has held that the appellant not having deposited the remaini...
Tag this Judgment!Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1961MP282
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Sugar Company having its registered office at Sehore challenging the constitutionality of the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, on the ground that it is repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner-Company was incorporated in the former Bhopal State. It owns sugarcane farms located in the area which was formerly Bhopal State. In 1953 the quondam Bhopal State which was then a Part-C State, enacted the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, 'for the imposition of a tax on agricultural income'. If extended to the whole of the Bhopal State. Section 2 of the Act defines 'agricultural income' as meaning any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and either assessed to land revenue or is subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Government as such, and any income derived from such land by agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Sheela Bai Vs. Ram Dayal Bhatnagar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ236
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of divorce on a petition by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the wife was living in adultery.2. It was urged in the petition that on June 18, 1958, the petitioner and his son found the appellant in compromising position with one Ram Krishan Sharma. The next day she left her husband's house and was since then residing with Ram Krishna. The wife resisted the petition and denied the charge of adultery as also of illicit intimacy with Ram Krisban. i According to her, she was beaten by her husband several times and he wanted to sell her. She also made an application' for maintenance. The learned trial Judge, having elaborately discussed the material on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant was living in adultery with Ram Krishan.3. Shri Patankar first of all contends that the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, had no jurisdiction to try the petition. The argument is that it is only t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »