Madhya Pradesh Court January 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. Bus Operator Vs. State Transport Appel ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP215; 1968MPLJ707
Pandey, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari an order dated 4th March 1967 whereby the State Transport Appellate Authority allowed two appeals filed by Chaurasia & Co. (respondent 4) and remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority. Rewa, for considering and deciding afresh its two applications for fresh grant in lieu of renewal of two stage carriage permits for the Chhatarpur-Darnoh route. The Appellate Authority reiected the contention that the appeals were barred by time and, in so doing, it relied upon two Division Bench decisions of this Court, namely, Dhanrajmal and Co. v. State Transport Appellate Authority, 1962 MPLJ 929 and Azad Hind Motor Transport Co-operative Society v. Regional Transport Authority. Indore. 1964 MPLJ 347. When this petition came up for hearing, it was argued that these two decisions required reconsideration. Since that could be done by a larger bench, this Full Bench was constitu...
Rishiraj Singh and ors. Vs. Raghubar Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP228; 1968MPLJ461
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Shiv Dayal J holding that an appeal preferred by the appellants before us, against a decision of the Additional District Judge, Ambikapur under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is a regular first appeal and should be registered as such and directing the appellants to state the valuation of the appeal and pay ad valorem court-fees on it accordingly2. The material facts are that in acquisition proceedings of certain lands situated in village Patna, tahsil Baikanthpur an amount of Rs 7196.70 was determined as compensation for the land acquired. In those proceedings a dispute arose betweenthe parties to the appeal as regards the apportionment of the compensation. The respondents claimed that they were entitled to the full amount of the compensation and that the appellants had no claim to receive the compensation amount. The Land Acquisition Officer referred this dispute about apportionment to the Court of the Additional D...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalu Thawar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1968
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1639
1. Respondent Kalu and Bapu were prosecuted under Section 34 of the Police Act. The case was fixed for 29-11-1963 for recording evidence. Earlier, at the instance of the prosecution summons had been issued to prosecution witnesses but on the aforesaid date of hear-ins the witnesses did not turn up. The learned Magistrate forthwith passed an order of acquittal aggrieved by which this appeal was preferred by the State.2. It is contended for the appellant that it was the duty of the trial Court to await return of the summons which had been issued or to issue fresh summons for attendance of the prosecution witnesses; and. in either case another date ought to have been fixed. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the trial Court was right in not fixing another date for hearing because the police prosecutor was also not present on 29-11-1965 so that there was no one on behalf of the Prosecution to apply for issuance of fresh summons. The argument is that the Magistrate is not boun...
Mohanlal Vishram Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC101(MP)
K.L. Pandey, J.1. This reference under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, has been made at the instance of the assessee. The questions of law which have been referred to us for our opinion are :(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the account books of the applicant was justified and the enhancement of the turnover disclosed by his account books to Rs. 87,000 from Rs. 85,633.03 for the period 12th November, 1958, to 31st March, 1959, and to Rs. 92,000 from Rs. 90,017.05 for the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st October, 1959, was warranted ?(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of purchase tax under Section 8(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, on the lease money amounting to Rs. 41,750 paid by the applicant after 1st April, 1959, for the purchase of forest coupes was justified ?2. The facts material for this reference as given in the statement of the case are these. The assessee ...
Gian Chand Mehta Vs. Commr. of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP145; [1968]22STC212(MP)
Sen, J.1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the applicant G. C. Mehta, a P. W. D. contractor, applied for issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition and other appropriate writ, direction or order, in respect of a notice issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. Madhya Pradesh.2. The applicant was assessed to tax for the period between 1st April 1953 and 31st March 1954 by an order of the Sales Tax Officer, Satna, dated 13th October, 1954, under Section 11(3) of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act (Act XXI of 1947), as extended to the Vindhya Pradesh region. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer reviewed his order and passed a fresh order of assessment. In accordance therewith, the applicant was found to have paid a sum of Rs. 6,900 in excess of the tax due. and the applicant, therefore, applied for a refund of the amount. During these proceedings the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax acting suo motu revised the assessment and passed an order dated 1st October 1957...
Smt. ThakuraIn Dulaiya Vs. Shivnath Punjabi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP130; 1968MPLJ251
Bhave, J. 1. Smt. Thakurain Dulaiya, the plaintiff-appellant, is the owner ofHouse No. 828, Lordganj, Jabalpur, and the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) is the tenant thereof at the monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for ejectment on various grounds including the ground that the defendant No. 1 had sub-let part of the premises to the defendants 2 and 3 and that the subletting being unlawful she was entitled to eject the defendants under Section 12(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The defendant No. 3 vacated the premises during the pendency of the suit. The defence of the defendants 1 and 2 was that the part of the premises was sublet to the defendant No. 2 at a tripartite contract between the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, arrived at between the parties at Mauranipur in April 1955. It was not disputed that the contract was oral; but the submission was that it being a tri...
Smt. Gulabbai Legal Representative of Late Karelal Kundanlal Vs. Commi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP181; [1968]69ITR238(MP); 1968MPLJ223
ORDER1. The Income-tax Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'A', at the instance of the assessee has referred the following questions for our decision:'(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the trust created by Karelal Kundanlal by a deed dated 24-10-50 resulted in a revocable transfer of the assets within the meaning of Section 16(1) (c) read with the first proviso? (ii) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether 3/4th of the income of the said trust be included in the total income of the assessee having regard to the third proviso to Section 16(1)(c)?' 2. This reference arises out of assessment proceedings for the year 1958-59 initiated against Karelal Kundanlal of Sagar. Karelal died during the pendency of his appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal and further proceedings thereafter were continued by his legal representative Smt. Gulabbai, who is shown as the applicant in these proceedings. Inthis judgment Karelal is referr...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›