Madhya Pradesh Court September 1962 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.
Anandibai and anr. Vs. Sundarabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1965MP85
P.K. Tare, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendants against the decree, dated, 20-4-1960, passed by Shri S. N. Chaturvedi, Additional District Judge, Dhar, in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1959, reversing the decree, dated 18-11-1958 passed by Shri R. L. Chandani, Civil Judge Class II, Badnawar, in Civil Suit No. 106 of 1953.2. The suit property originally belonged to 'Pannalal, who died on 6-10-1961, leaving behind two daughters, namely, Anandibai and Sunderbai. The second appellant, Krishna is the son of the first appellant, Anandibai who claimed to be the adopted son of Pannalal. 3. The respondent filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of the property left by Pannalal on the premises that she had inherited the same along with her sister, Anandibai. She also claimed mesne profits. The suit was filed in the year 1953, that is, much before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. 4. The appellants' defence was mainly twofold firstly that the second respondent, Krish...
Shivaji Oil Mills Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1962
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT506(MP)
K.L. Pandey, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a notice by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Raipur, on 21st October, 1960 to the petitioner asking it to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed for contravention of Rules 9(1) and 53(a) read with Rule 226(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, and for quashing an order made by the said authority on 31st March, 1961 holding the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Rules 9(2) and 226(ii) and imposing on it a penalty of Rs. 50/- The Superintendent also made an order for the recovery of duty at the appropriate rate from the petitioner on 469.20 maunds of linseed oil which he found the petitioner mill had removed without payment of duty thereon.2. This petition must be dismissed. The petitioner had admittedly filed an appeal against the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Raipur, to the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpu...
Central India Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR543(MP)
DIXIT C.J. - The question which we have been asked to answer in this reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) at the instance of the assessee is as follows :'Whether on a true interpretation of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act the declaration of the dividend by the assessee company in its general meeting held on February 28, 1956, was tantamount to distribution of dividend within the meaning of that section ?'The material facts are that the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of the provisions of section 23A of the Income-tax, 1922. At a general meeting held on 28th February, 1956, the assessee company passed a resolution for distribution of Rs. 15,125 as dividend. The dividend was, however, not actually paid to the shareholders up to 31st July, 1956. No dividend warrants were even issued up to that date. The Income-tax Officer computed the assessees income for the assessment year 1955-56 at Rs. 30,11...
Lakhamichand Muchhal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR562(MP); 1962MPLJ1146
DIXIT C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee, Messrs. Lakhamichand Muchhal of Indore. The question stated for our opinion is :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 21,000 paid to the munim, Jagannathji, was an allowable deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act ?'The assessee is a registered firm. In the assessment proceedings for the year 1955-56 the claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,000 on the ground that the amount was paid to its ex-munim, one Shri Jagannathji, as gratuity at the time of his retirement. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction holding that there was no evidence to show that the assessee used to pay such gratuity to its employees or that the payment was made in the future interest of the business. He relied on Gordon Woodroffe Leather . v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also rejected the assessees claim for deduction. Before hi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara Vs. Ma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR477(MP)
At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, the Tribunal has, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, referred to this court the following question of law :'Whether the firm is entitled to registration under section 26A on the basis of the application dated April 4, 1958, annexure 'B' aforesaid ?'The facts giving rise to this reference, as disclosed in the statement of the case, are these. Madanlal, who was dealing in silver and gold ornaments, was the sole proprietor of the business which he carried on. He entered into an agreement with his brother, Chhaganlal, by which they became equal partners in the business with effect from October 24, 1957. The terms and conditions on which they joined the partnership are contained in the deed dated January 9, 1958. One of these terms provides that each partner will be entitled to interest at 6 per cent. per annum on his capital investment. This partnership was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms and the b...
Achchelal S/O Lallulal Lohar Vs. Janpada Sabha and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP74
Pandey, J.1. This case comes before us because it raises tbe question of validity of Section 90 of the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, and the Division Bench seized of the case was of opinion that, in view of the importance of the question, it should be heard by a Full Bench.2 Before proceeding to the points arising in the case, we may briefly state the facts of the case. By a resolution dated 10 June, 1957 passed in a special meeting convened for the purpose, the Janapada Sabha, Sihora, decided to impose on persons engaged in the business of manufacture of bidis within the Janapada area an annual tax. In due course, the resolution was forwarded to the State Government. In exercise of the powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), the State Government, by a Gazette Notification No. 6165-8889-R dated 4 November 1960, sanctioned, with effect from 1 April 1961, the impositio...
Mohan Singh Laxman Singhji Rajput Vs. Bhawarlal Nahta and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP140; 1963MPLJ498
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Election Tribunal, Ratlam, rejecting the petitioner's application asking for dismissal of the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1, Bhawarlal Nahta, as required by Section 90(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the said respondent had failed to join one Himmatsingh as a respondent to his petition.2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner was duly elected to the Madhya Pradesh State Legislative Assembly at the last general election held in February, 1962, from Sitaman constituency, in Mandsaur district. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3, one Himmat Singh and other persons were also duly nominated for election in that constituency. Himmat Singh later on withdrew his candidature. After the petitioner was declared to be elected, the first respondent, who was defeated in...
Mannalal Lacchiram and Sons Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1964MP81; 1965MPLJ96
Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application by the proprietors of an industrial unit consisting of number of factories in an enclosed area covering more than ten acres and assessed to a building tax (bhavan kar) at the minimum rate of 4 annas per hundred square feet of ground area, by the local authority, which is the Gram Panchayat Susari in Tehsil Kukshi of District Dhar. This is the non-applicant No. 1and for the reasons, that will presently appear, the State of Madhya Pradesh has been made opposite party No. 2. Because the area is several hundred thousand square feet, the bhavan kar assessed is Rs. 1066/- per acre.The prayer is that this assessment should be declared illegal, because for one thing, the law under which it is being levied is bad for excessive delegation to the Government, and further the legal position is worsened by a second delegation on the part of the Government to the Director of Panchayats, and a further delegation by him at least of part of the power to the local a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›