Madhya Pradesh Court August 1966 Judgments
Yeshwant Rao Meghawale Vs. Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP95
Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No 330 of 1966 2. By these applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the two petitioners Shri Yeshwant Rao Meghawale and Shri Pandhari Rao Kridutta seek a declaration that notwithstanding the passing of two resolutions by the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 17th March 1966 expelling them from the House, their seats have not become vacant and pray that the respondents--the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, the Secretary of the Assembly and the State of Madhva Pradesh--be restrained by a direction from giving effect in any manner to the resolutions and to the notifications published by the Secretary of the Assembly in the Extra-ordinary Gazette dated 19th March 1966 They also pray that the fourth respondent, namely, the Election Commission, New Delhi, be also directed not to hold bye-elections for filling their seats. 3. The circumstances in which the Assembly passed two resoluti...
Tag this Judgment!Benechand Bhomraj Kothari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ834
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This petition challenges the competence of the petitioner's trial under Rule 126 of the Gold Control Rules, 1963 for possession of 720-100 grams of primary gold. The accused took a preliminary objection before the trial Magistrate that his prosecution was barred under Section 408, Criminal P.C. The trial Magistrate rejected the contention. The accused filed a revision in the Sessions Court which too has been dismissed.2. Shri Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, narrates the following facts. On 6 May 1983, the house of the petitioner was searched under Section 126 (2) of the Gold Control Rules, and according to the prosecution 720-100 grams of primary gold was seized from his possession. The Collector, Central Excise, gave him notice to show cause why he should not be penalized. After hearing him, the Collector, Central Excise, held him guilty under Section 126(1) and imposed ft penalty of Sections 250 under Section 126L(16) of the Gold Control Rules. Further, h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vinod Maheshwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP104; 1967CriLJ498
Dixit, C.J. 1. These contempt of Court proceedings have been initiated against Shri Purushottam Kaushik, Secretary. 'Samyukta Socialist Party'. Madhya Pradesh, Shri Narayanan, Editor of Madhya Pradesh Chronicle, a daily newspaper published from Bhopal and Shri Vinod Maheshwari, printer and publisher of the said newspaper, in respect of a statement contained in an account of a Press Conference held by Kaushik on 20th May 1966, which was published in the issue dated Bhopal the 22nd May 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh Chronicle: The report of the Press Conference, so far as it is material here, appeared thus: 'The Slate Samyukta Socialist Party has threatened to boycott the Pande Commission on Bastar firing in case the Party's demands for ensuring confidence of the people in the Commission were not conceded. Mr. Purshottam Kaushik, Secretary, S. S. P. told reporters this morning that a decision to this effect was likely to be taken at the Executive meeting of the S. S. P. to be held at Bhopal ...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Abbasbhai Tyab Ali Bohra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1723
1. This order will govern Ori. Appeals Nos. 180 of 1966 and 181 of 1960, as in both the cases the question is the same.2. The respondents Shankerlal and Abbasbhai in both the cases were proceeded against under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Both were convicted by the Magistrate First Class Thandla but have been acquitted in appeal. The acquittal is on the ground that while the articles were sent for analysis by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst certain rules were not observed,3. The Rules 7 and 18 which are subject-matter of this appeal read as follows:Rule 7On receipt of a package containing a sample for analyst from the Food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seal on the container and the outs; cover with specimen received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon.(2) The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of food as may be sent to him by the F...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Daulatram Dulichand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP89; [1967]19STC502(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968, by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The question which has been referred to this Court for decision is: 'Whether an exemption certificate issued under Rule 11 (c) of the M. B. Sales Tax Rules 1950 will be valid only for the quantum of turnover mentioned in it and will not cover any excess turnover over and above that mentioned in it and whether the excess turnover will be taxable at the rate of Rs. 1-9-0 per cent or at the rate of 0-4-0 per cent?' 2. In order to appreciate the facts and circumstances in which the reference has been made it is necessary first to refer to the relevant provisions of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and of the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) Under Section 4 (2) of the Act no tax was payable on the sale of goods specified in the second column or Sc...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sitaram Vishwanath and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1002
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. The question, ?which has arisen in this revision, is whether a Magistrate, while dropping proceedings under Section 145(5), Criminal P.C., has jurisdiction to direct Police to hand over possession to a particular party of the property Which was attached earlier under Section 145, Criminal P.C.2. As bask as on 26th July 1962, the Police initiated proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., against Sitaram (first party) and Smt. Bhagwatibai and three other (second party) on the allegation that they wore on inimical terms and there was likelihood of breach of peace. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (City), Jabalpur, by his preliminary order dated 27th July 1962, ordered attachment of the house in dispute. In compliance with the Magistrate's order, the Police sealed the house and took it in its possession. A constable was deputed to have watch ?over it. The keys were deposited with the Court. There is no mention in the compliance report from whose possession the house ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramshakal Yadav Vs. Chief Security Officer, Railway Protection Force a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP91; (1969)ILLJ343MP
Dixit, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari by Ramshakal Yadav, who was employed as a Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force, Jabalpur, for quashing an order passed by the Assistant Security Officer, Jabalpur on 6th October 1964 removing the applicant from service with effect from 8th October 1964. 2. The petitioner's removal from service was as a sequel to a departmental enquiry held against him in May, 1964 on the charge that on the night of 15th June 1963 while detailed for duty at Post No. 9. South-Eastern Railway Platform, to guard the parcels, he helped Rakshak Govind Narayan Singh and another Rakshak Priyatam Singh in committing the theft of one bale of cloth and helped them in removing the same from the platform. The departmental enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Inspector, Railway Protection Force. Jabalpur. At the conclusion of the enquiry, he found the aforesaid charge prima facie established agains...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Vs. Bhilai Steel Project (by General Manager) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ745MP
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case was employed as an assistant heater in the Tolling mills of the Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai. In November 1960 he went on 22 days' leave. He, however, did not resume duties on the expiry of his leave on 17 December 1960, Instead, he sent an application for extension of leave up to 30 December 1960 on the ground that he was ill. It appears that this extension' of leave was not granted. On 5 January 1961 the petitioner received a notice from the General Manager of the Bhilai Steel Project asking him to explain his unauthorized absence from duty. The applicant says that he replied to this notice on 7 January 1961, In the meantime, respondent 1 passed an order on 19 December 1960 terminating the petitioner's service. The order simply mentioned that the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from the date of the service of the order on him, without prejudice to the right of the Hindustan Steel, Ltd., to recover the expenditure i...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR285(MP)
DIXIT C.J. - This consolidated reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, at the instance of the assessee, Kishanlal of Baghana, Neemuch, arises out of the Tribunals common order dismissing two appeals relating to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 preferred by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Income-tax Officers order, imposing penalty on the assessee for his failure to file returns under section 22 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, withing 65 days of the publication of public notices under that section. The two questions which have been placed before us for decision are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted rightly in upholding the application of section 297(2)(g) read with sections 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the delay in the submission of returns for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 (sic).2. In the event of question No. 1 being answered in the affirmative, whether on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway and anr. Vs. Onkarnath Gupt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ705MP; 1969MPLJ54
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against a reversing appellate order dated 6 August 1963 whereby the District Judge, Jabalpur, acting under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act), set aside an order of the Payment of Wages Authority dated 30 June 1962 and instead directed the applicants to refund to the non-applicant Rs. 2,973.96 which had been, so it was found, wrongfully deducted and also to pay to him Rs. 700 as compensation.2. The facts giving rise to this revision may be shortly stated. At the material time, the non-applicant was employed as aweighment clerk in the Central Railway and worked at Katni. He was suspended with effect from 27 April 1957, a departmental enquiry was held against him and he was removed from service from 12 July 1957. He successfully challenged the order of his removal from service in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4 of 1958, dated 3 July 1959, and this Court qu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »