Madhya Pradesh Court March 1966 Judgments
Abdul Salam Abdul Hamid Vs. Laxmi Singh Tularam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP144; 1968MPLJ316
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. The non-applicant instituted a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code (Summary procedure on NegotiableInstruments) against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional District Judge Umaria. On notice being issued to him, the defendant-petitioner raised certain preliminary objections. One of them was that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. That obiection has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that it has inherent jurisdiction to try the suit and that the provisions contained in Section 7(2) of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958 are administrative in nature.2. Order 37, Rule 1, Civil ProcedureCode runs thus:'1. Application of Order: This Order shall apply only to - (a) the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William. Madras and Bombay; (b) any District Court or other Court specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government (c) x x x; and (d) any other Court to which sections 532 to 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 hav...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shankarlal Dariyav and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1144
ORDERR.J. Bhave, J.1. The Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, by order, dated 5.2.1965, rejected the objection of the accused persona that the complaint should be returned for being presented to the Nyaya Panchayat having jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, has made this reference recommending the quashing of the said order.2. The facts of the case are: Gulabsingh, Ron applicant; No. 8 (hereinafter referred to as 'Party No. 1') filed a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 426, 427 and 430 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the non-applicants 1 and 2, Shankerlal and Rameshwar (hereinafter referred to as 'Party No. 2') maliciously closed the sleaves of a tank from which the complainant's field a were irrigated and thereby caused damage to the extent of Rs. 1,500/-. The Magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and decided to proceed with the enquiry for an offence under Section 430,...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanlal Umaji and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP30
Pandey, J. 1. At the instance of the assesses, the Appellate Tribunal. Bombay has, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act,1922, referred to this Court for its opinion the following question of few :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the firm of M/s. Chimanlal Umaji and Sons constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 29-9-1964 could be denied registration on the ground that the instrument of partnership did not specify the individual shares of the partners as required by Section 26-A of the Act ?2. The material facts, as appearing from the statement of the case, are these. The assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding previous year being the one which ended on 23rd October 1957. The assessee is a firm consisting of three partners, namely. Chiman lal, Mangalchand and Hukumchand and one minor, Gulabchand, has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 29th September 1954, the m...
Tag this Judgment!Chiman Lal Umaji and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: [1975]98ITR306(MP)
Pandey, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, referred to this court for its opinion the following question of law '' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the firm of M/s. Chimanlal Umaji and Sons constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 29th September, 1954, could be denied registration on the ground that the instrument of partnership did not specify the individual shares of the partners as required by Section 26A of the Act '2. The material facts, as appearing from the statement of the case, are these. The assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding previous year being the one which ended on 23rd October, 1957. The assessee is a firm consisting of three partners, namely, Chimanlal, Mangalchand and Hukumchand and one minor, Gulabchand, has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 29th Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP28
Pandey, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has, acting under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, stated the case and referred to this Court for its opinion the following question of law:Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances proved in this case, the inference that the securities in question were held by the assessee as an investment and not as a stock-in-trade and that the loss incurred thereon was a capital loss is, in law, justified?2. The material facts as disclosed in the statement of the case are these. The assessment year is 1953-54, the relevant account being 1952-58 ending on 31 March 1953. The assessee is a company incorporated in the year 1948 with several objects set out in the Memorandum of Association, including those mentioned in Clause 16 thereof, which reads:'To invest and deal with the moneys of the Company, and in particular to subscribe for or otherwise acquire and to hold and deal with the perpetual or rede...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottamdas Mathuradas and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Sal ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: [1969]23STC319(MP)
T.P. Naik, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee-dealer by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, under Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The question referred to us is as follows :Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in confining itself only to the examination in second appeal against the order of dismissal in default of the justification of that order or could also go into the merits of the case under Section 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?2. The facts giving rise to the reference may now briefly be stated. For the period 1st October, 1947, to 30th September, 1948, the assessee was assessed to sales tax by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, by his order dated 5th July, 1954.The assessee went up in appeal under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, read with Rule 53 of...
Tag this Judgment!investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR269(MP)
PANDEY, J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has, acting under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, stated the case and referred to this court for its opinion the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances proved in this case, the inference that the securities in question were held by the assessee as an investment and not as a stock-in-trade and that the loss incurred thereon was a capital loss is, in law, justifie ?'The material facts as disclosed in the statement of the case are these :The assessment year is 1953-54, the relevant accounting year being 1952-53 ending on March 31, 1953. The assessee is a company incorporated in the year 1948, with several objects set out in the memorandum of association, including those mentioned in clause 16 thereof, which reads :'To invest and deal with the moneys of the company, and in particular to subscribe for or otherwise acquire and to hold and deal with the perpet...
Tag this Judgment!Manalal Mandoli Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP173
ORDER1. This is a petition by an appellant before the Board of Revenue whose appeal has been rejected as lime barred even after giving him all concessions in regard to certain delays. The position taken here is altogether different from that taken before the Board and we have to decide, firstly, whether in a petition under Article 227 or as for that matter under Article 226 itself, a ground can he canvassed that has not been even hinted at before the subordinate tribunal or authority. Secondly, whether for filing the appeal to the Bench of Revenue under the Co-operative Societies Act from an award by an Assistant Registrar there is no court-fee payable. Thirdly, whether the Board in disposing of the earlier appeal by the petitioner should have given him time and kept that appeal alive and not returned it as it actually did. And finally, whether on the delayed payment of court fee the filing of the appeal will relate back to the date on which the earlier appeal bad been filed without co...
Tag this Judgment!Raipur Transport Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP141
Pandey, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against-(i) an order dated 3 January 1966 whereby the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, granted to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (respondent 3) a temporary stage carriage permit for the Jabalpur-Raipur route till 22 March 1966; and (ii) an order dated 27 January 1966 by which the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, countersigned it subject to modification in regard to the time of departure from Raipur. 2. The facts which gave rise to this petition may be shortly stated. The Jabalpur-Raipur route is covered by the Scheme No 33 which, having been duly approved and notified under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, will commence to operate from 23 March 1966 Even so, the respondent 3 applied for a temporary stage carriage permit for the route. On 3 January 1966, the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, passed on that application, which was not published...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›