Madhya Pradesh Court August 1961 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.
Malkhansingh Nirpatsingh Vs. Inspector of Central Excise, P.i. and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP112
Pandey, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against certain proceedings taken under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). These proceedings were initiated for an alleged, contravention of Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) framed under the Act and culminated in an order dated 6 July 1959 by which the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jabalpur (respondent 3), held that a part of the tobacco contained in 327 bags stocked in the petitioner's private bonded warehouse was clandestinely removed and replaced with inferior stuff and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 30-319/ig/ as duty and Rs. 250/- as penalty. The above-mentioned 327 bags of tobacco were also thereby forfeited but there was a direction that, if the petitioner paid a fine of Rs. 500/- within 3 months from the date of the order, the tobacco would be regarded as duty paid and returned to him.The petitioner prays for (i) ...
Anandrao Vishnupant Bagdare Vs. Motilal Pandurang Mahajan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP217
ORDERM.A. Razzaque, J.1. The applicant decree-holder Anandrao has filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the order dated 16-8-1860 parsed by Civil Judge Class II, Kasarawad, in Execution Case No. 103/60 arising out of civil suit No. 13/57, whereby he held that the non-applicants decree-holders in execution cases Nos. 113/60, 13/60, 102/60 and 109/60 are entitled to reteable distribution under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The question for our decision in this case is that when the custody court and the executing court are the same, then which is the exact point of time when assets should be considered to have been received by the executing court within the, meaning of Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to entitle the other decree-holders to claim rateable distribution. Counsel, for the parties are agreed that other ingredients of Section 73, are fulfilled in the case and the dispute is only about the time when the ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›