Madhya Pradesh Court October 1963 Judgments
Municipal Committee Vs. Harda Electric Supply Co. (Private) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964MP101
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This first appeal arises from a suit instituted by the Harda Electric Supply Company (Private) Limited (hereinafter called the Company) against the Municipal Committee, Harda (hereinafter called the Municipality) for recovery of Rs. 50,000/-as damages and for other alternative reliefs. The suit was resisted by the Municipality, The Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, passed a decree for Rs. 40,000/-. The Municipality has filed this appeal; the Company has filed cross-objections.2. The plaintiff's case was that by an agreement dated July 31, 1936, the Electro Mechanics Ltd., Bombay, agreed to supply the Municipality with electric energy for the purpose of pumping approximately 3 lac gallons of water daily. The agreement was to operate for 25 years. Of the terms and conditions contained in it one was that the water pumped per unit would not be below 1000 gallons on an average 'at the specified head of 130 feet'. By another clause, it was agreed between the contractin...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Ghosh Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1963
Reported in: 1964MPLJ2; [1965]16STC661(MP)
K.L. Pandey, J.1. At the instance of the applicant, the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh (Tribunal) has, under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, formulated and referred to this Court for its opinion the following question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the inclusion of the purchases for Rs. 2,62,919.67 in the turnover of the appellant for assessment to tax under Section 4(6) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, was justified? 2. The facts of the case so far as they are necessary for this reference may be briefly stated. The applicant, who is a registered dealer, purchases timber locally and sells such timber mostly to persons outside this State. He was assessed to tax on sales made by him in the year 9th November, 1957, to 22nd October, 1958. He had purchased timber worth Rs. 2,62,919.67 on declarations but, instead of selling the timber in this State for the purpose of consumption in this State as he undertook to do by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyamdas Chhotalal Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964MP161; [1964]15STC128(MP)
Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner questions the legality of the assessment to sales tax made against a partnership firm doing business under the name and style of M/s Chhotalal Keshaoram and Co., Rajanandgaon, by an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, on 20th July 1954. By that order the taxable turnover of the firm for the period from 17th February 1950 to 30th November 1951 was determined at Rs. 1,96,000/-and the amount of sales tax payable by the firm was found to be Rs. 6,125/-. The petitioner also challenges the legality of the notices issued to the' firm in Form XII on 8th December 1952, 23rd October 1953, 6th May 1954 and 24th May 1954, under Section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, (here, inafter referred to as the Act), pursuant to which the impugned assessment was made. He prays that the said notices, the assessment order made by the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, the demand no...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kamta Prasad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP203; 1966CriLJ762
Golvalker, J. 1. By a revision petition accused one Beharilal had challenged the correctness of his conviction under Rule 81 read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and by my order dated 21-12-1962 I had held that the conviction of the accused was unwarranted and unsustainable. Accordingly it was set aside and the accused was acquitted. But while coming to the said conclusion I had expressly held that Kamta Prasad (P. W. 3) and Mahesh Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 2) not only had given false evidence in Court but had also fabricated false evidence for purposes of prosecution of the accused, and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence, it was expedient that these two witnesses should be prosecuted. Accordingly a notice as retired by Section 479-A (5), Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), was issued calling upon them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. Hence these proceedings.2. Witness M...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram Raghunath Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965MP122; 1965CriLJ704
Shiv Dayal, J.1. Gangaram, who appears to be a lad of 13 or 14 years, has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions, Judge, Jagdalpur. 2. Gangaram appellant and Ghanshyam, the deceased, were nearly of the same age, both residents of village Bhanbeda. On November 1, 1961, they both went out from Bhanbeda village together. At that time the accused had a Pharsi, while the deceased had a Tangia. They did not return to their village that night, but stayed at the house of Cherku (P. W. 7) in village Dabkatta. Next day, Cherku asked Itwari (P. W. 5) to reach the boys to their village. On their way, the two boys slipped away. On the evening of Thursday, Gangaram accused alone returned to the village. When he was asked about Ghanshyam, he stated that he and Ghanshyam had been lifted in a truck by some Dandukaranyawalas, but he (Gangaram) could manage to jump out of the truck. This answer was not satisfactory. Raghunath (P. W. 3), father of the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Kasam Abdul Rehman and anr. Vs. Abdul Gafoor Ahmedji and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964MP227
Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by representatives of the Muslim Community of Ujjain under Order 1 Rule 8, C. P. Code, after obtaining sanction of the Advocate-General.2. The property in suit is a defunct grave-yard (Kabarstan) in Ujjain. The defendants are sons of one Abdulrahman. They used to live with one Karimshah Fakir who was appointed manager of the Kabarstan some time in Samvat Year 1974-1916 A.D. In 1916 a flour mill was set up by one Alimohammad who was alleged to be the purchaser from Mariambai. This Mariambai and Shahbajthan constructed residential house on a part of the graver yard about 15 or 16 years before. Another house was also constructed by Shahbajkhan. These constructions, it is alleged were with the permission of the Muslim Community in general. Mariambai Shahbajkhan and defendants were allowed to live in that house for looking after the management and affairs of Kabarstan.3. About 4 years before the suit it is alleged that the defendants were n...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Laxminarayan Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC618(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the assessee the two questions which we are asked to answer are :-(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejec tion of the applicant's prayer for adjournment on 8th March, 1958, was justified ?(2) Whether the estimate of the turnover and of the deductions in each case was arbitrary and without basis ?2. The material facts are that the Sales Tax Officer, Bilaspur, made three best judgment assessment orders against the assessee, Gulabchand Laxminarayan of Pendra, in April and May, 1958, for the periods from 19th October, 1952, to 6th October, 1953; from 7th November, 1953, to 26th October, 1954; and from 27th October, 1954, to 14th November, 1955. The assessee's first appeals were dismissed. His three second appeals before the Board of Revenue were also disallowed so far as the assessment of tax was concerned. In those appeals the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swarup and anr. Vs. Jitmal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP186
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. In this application in revision by the defendants in a small cause suit for mesne profits for a period well after the filing of the original suit we are concerned with four main grounds. Firstly, whether a suit for mesne profits claimed by the plaintiff as a liquidated amount of money is excluded by Article 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, from the competency of that class of Courts. Secondly, whether a separate suit for mesne profits for a subsequent period is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code when the plaintiff does not ask for it in the suit itself. Thirdly, whether Order 20 Rule 12 has any application at all to a claim of mesne profits in a separate suit. Finally, whether the fact that the judgment-debtor in the execution proceedings of the original decree has raised questions before it as to the measurement and location of the land that should have been delivered into the possession of the plaintiff, justifies the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›