Madhya Pradesh Court May 1967 Judgments
Lal Audhraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary to For ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1967MP284; (1967)IILLJ531MP
Dixit, C.J. 1. The petitioner in this case seeks a writ of certlorari for quashing an order passed by the Government on 21st December 1965 withholding 'with cumulative effect' one increment in his scale of pay as the Assistant Conservator of Forests. 2. On 27th January 1954, when the applicant was holding the post of Range Officer, he was charged for negligence in the discharge of his duties in that he failed to inspect a coupe between 13th May 1952 and 22nd February 1953, which alleged failure resulted in illicit extraction and removal of material from the coupe by a Forest Contractor. By the chargesheet served on the applicant, he was also asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service or awarded one of the punishments detailed in Rule (1) Para 3 of Part 1. Serial No. 13 of the Book Circular of the Madhya Pradesh Government. The petitioner gave his reply on 4th March 1954 denying the allegation of negligence. Nnthing happened thereafter till 15th April 1963. In the i...
Tag this Judgment!J.C. Rishi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secy. to Govt. of India Mi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968MP42
Bhave, J.1. The petitioner had applied for grant of a mining lease over 30.32 acres of land in village Dhaurabhata for a period of 20 years for mining dolomite. The State Government, however, by order dated 7th January 1964 granted a lease over 27.67 acres and that too for a period of three years only. The petitioner accepted the lease under protest and preferred a revision petition under Section 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, before the Central Government That revision was allowed and the State Government was directed to grant lease over 30.32 acres of land for a period of 10 years. Pursuant to the said order dated 23rd February 1965, a supplementary lease dated 31st January 1966 was executed on behalf of the State Government in favour of the petitioner.2. The Central Government, however, as a result of certain proceedings initiated by Vallabhadas Sutaria (respondent No. 4) set aside the order of the State Government dated 7th January 1964 and directed the State Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokuldas Pagaria Vs. Parmanand Chaurasia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1967MP265
Dixit, C.J. 1. This second appeal, which has come up before us for disposal on a reference by one of us arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for the eviction of the appellant from a house situated in Jabalpur Cantonment area. 2. The plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for ejectment on 15th July 1963 after giving a notice to the appellant terminating his tenancy No ground for ejectment, falling under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, or under Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1955, repealed by the Act of 1961, was averred by the plaintiff or made out at the trial. Both the courts below decreed the plaintiff's claim taking the view that when the suit for eviction was filed neither the Act of 1955 nor the 1961 Act was in force in the Jabalpur Cantonment area; that the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act. 1957, and published in the Gazette of ...
Tag this Judgment!Frontier Boot House Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1967
Reported in: [1969]23STC414(MP)
1. The Sales Tax Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P.), at the instance of the assessee, has made this reference under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The questions referred to us for our decision are:(1) Whether or not foot-wear manufactured by hand and sold for a price not exceeding Rs. 15 to a registered dealer by the manufacturer himself or by any member of his family would be free from liability to-sales tax when the goods so purchased were resold by the registered dealer who is himself not a manufacturer or a member of the family of the manufacturer ?(2) Whether or not it was legal to treat the sales tax collected separately by a registered dealer from customers to whom he sold goods as part of sale price ?2. The assessee is a dealer in foot-wear. During the assessment proceedings for the period 1st April, 1961, to 31st March, 1962, the assessee claimed deduction in the sum of Rs. 56,492.31 on the ground that this sum represented the sale price of foot-wear pu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›