Madhya Pradesh Court April 1965 Judgments
Dayabhai and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP13; [1966]59ITR364(MP); 1965MPLJ644
Dixit, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee Messrs. Dayabhai & Co. of Barwani, the question posed for our answer is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1956-57?'2. The facts of the case are as follows. One Dayabhai was carrying on under the name and style of 'Dayabhai & Co.' the business of plying buses and trucks, and exhibition of cinema films. The permits for the running of stage carriages and trucks issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were in the name of Dayabhai. In August 1954, Dayabhai admitted his brother Chhotabhai as a partner in this business. A partnership deed was executed between the two brothers on 1st August 1954. Under the agreement the two brothers shared equally the profits and losses of the partnership business which according to the deed consisted...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Nathu Vs. Parubai W/O Sadashiv
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1967MP85; 1967CriLJ379
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. The question in this case is whether the cancellation by the Magistrate of an order granting maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code operates ipso facto from the date of the original order itself, and thereby disentitles the maintenance-holder to getting anything by way of arrears during the period between the original making of the order and the date of cancellation. The Sessions Judge heard the revision by the husband from the order of the Magistrate on the one hand cancelling the earlier order for maintenance and on the other granting the wife maintenance for the period between the making of the original order and the date of cancellation. The actual amount is only a small one. being the maintenance for about 11/2 month at the rate of Rs. 25.But the principle involved is important, and as apparently there is no decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on this subject it has to be examined at some length. The Sessions Judge himself has made a refer...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatradharilal Gangaram Supedar Vs. Shyamabai Ramsewaklal Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP67
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and decree of Pandey J., affirming those of the executing Court, raises the question whether on sale of land in execution of a decree for realisation of money, the auction-purchaser ipso facto acquires title to the growing crops. The learned Single Judge answered it in the affirmative. This is judgment-debtor's appeal.2. Smt. Shyamabai had a decree against the appellant Chhatradharilal for recovery of money. In execution of that decree, extensive lands belonging to the judgment-debtor were attached and sold. The decree-holder herself purchased the property for Rs. 30,000/- in Court sale. A sale certificate declaring her to be the purchaser of Khudkasht and sir lands, area 300.86 acres in village Thelka, was issued. In the sale certificate, khasra numbers together with area of every one of them were specified. It was on an application filed by decree-holder's agent, asserting that the decree-holder was...
Tag this Judgment!United Patel Construction. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR424(MP)
PANDEY J. - This reference has been made in pursuance of an order dated 3rd April, 1964, which we made on an application filed by the assessee under section 66(2) of the Income tax Act, 1922. The question formulated for our opinion is :'Whether there is any evidence to support the Tribunals finding on the point that the partnership formed by Jamnadas, Gokuldas and Tapubhai was not genuine, and whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing registration of the firm under section 26A ?'The facts material for this reference are these. Under the name and style of Messrs. United Patel Construction Co., two brothers, Jamnadas and Gokuladas, were carrying on, as partners, the business of exectuting contracts was dissolved on January 13, 1958, and its business was taken over by another firm of the same name, which was formed on 14th January, 1958, and constituted by Jamnadas, Gokuldas and their third brother, Tapubhai. The first two executed a partnership deed on the same date and sent it to J...
Tag this Judgment!Manorama Bai Vs. Manishankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1967MP139
1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ujjain on a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.2. The petition was filed by one Manishankar against his wife Manoramabai. They were married on 22-5-57. After marriage for two years Manoramabai continued to live with Manishankar as his wife and they lived happily at Ujjain. On 10-1-59, father of Manoramabai look her away for some treatment to Shajapur. When Manoramabai went she had with her ornaments belonging to the petitioner.3. In 1960 and before that the petitioner had written several letters to his wife and also to his father-in-law but either there was no reply or false replies were given. In 1960 he personally went to the house of his father-in-law and requested personally to send his wife back, but he did not succeed in bringing her back. Subsequently also he made several attempts to bring his wife but he was not successful.4. Manoramabai, the petitioner further alleged was a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shri Ballabhdas Ishwardas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1965
Reported in: [1968]21STC309(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 258, 259, 260, 261 and 262, all of 1964.2. These six references under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales' Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax arise out of Sales Tax Tribunal's orders passed in six appeals arising out of assessment proceedings for the assessment years from 1st January, 1950 to 30th June, 1956. In each reference the question which has been stated for our decision is:-Whether biscuits fall under tax-free goods under item No. 41 of Schedule II to the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?3. The assessee's claim that biscuits were exempt from sales tax under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was negatived by the Sales Tax Authorities. It was, however, accepted by the Sales Tax Tribunal, that is, the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeals preferred by the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shrikishan Chandmal.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR303(MP); 1965MPLJ622
PANDEY J. - Under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, referred to this court for its opinion the following question of law for the assessment year 1956-57 :'Whether the dividend income of Rs. 23,302 can be set off under section 24(2) against the business loss of Rs. 4,17,255 (Rs. 12,934 plus Rs. 4,04,321) brought forward from the assessment year 1955-56 ?'The material facts as appearing from the case stated by the Tribunal are these. The relevant assessment year are 1955-56 and 1956-57, the corresponding account years being 7th November, 1953, to 26th October, 1954 and 27th October, 1954, to 14th November, 1955. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family deriving income from several sources falling under the following three heads :(i) Income from property (section 9);(ii) Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation (section 10); and(iii) Income under the residuary head whic...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. a Firm Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP110
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 154, 156 and 156, all of 1965.2. By these four applications under Article 226 of the Constitution Messrs. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Company, a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bidies, questions the validity of tenders submitted by the respondent Messrs. Vrajlal Muljibhai and Company, Bilaspur, for the purchase of tendu leaves collected by Government or by its officers or agents in four units of certain ranges of North Bilaspur Forest Division, and seeks a direction restraining the respondents from acting in any manner on those tenders. The petitioner also prays for the issue of a direction commanding the opponents to entertain and consider the lenders it had submitted for the purchase of tendu leaves from the same units for which the aforesaid respondent had given its tenders.3. The matter arises thus. In 1964, the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniya...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Prasad Dubey Vs. Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1967MP79; (1969)ILLJ607MP
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against-(i) the High Court's administrative order No. 2209/111-18-126/63 dated 12 March 1964 whereby an appeal preferred by one T.P. Shrivastava (respondent 3) was allowed and he was restored to the post of stenographer to the District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, with effect from the date of his taking over charge o( the post; and (ii) an order dated 13 March 1964 by which, in implementing the aforesaid order of the High Court, the District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (respondent 2), cancelled the confirmation of the petitioner on the post of stenographer to the District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. reverted him to a lower post of clerk-stenographer and stopped his special allowance of Rs. 25/-. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition arc simple and may be shortly stated. The petitioner and the respondent 3 were working as clerk-stenographers in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP34
Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-challenges the validity of the 'Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 1965' (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), an ordinance promulgated by the Governor on 11th May 1965, amending in certain respects the 'Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta-(Vyapar Viniyaman ) Niyamavali, 1965, (Rules framed under the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, and hereinafter called the Rules), and of the appointment of the respondent No. 5, M/S Vrajlal Muljibhai and Co., Bilaspur, as purchaser for the purchase of Tendu Patta leaves collected by the Government or by its officers or agents in certain units of certain ranges of North Bilaspur Forest Division. The petitioner prays that the Ordinance be declared' invalid and the appointment of the respondent No. 5 purporting to have been made in accordance with the Rules, as amended by the Ordinance, be held to be ille...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »