Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal Vs. Regional T ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP183; 1969MPLJ208
Singh, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation calls into question an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rowa passed on 17th June, 1968 by which one stage carriage permit was granted to each of the respondents, M/s. Ramgopal Satyanarayan and M/s. Viswanath Prasad Ramgopal for the route Rewa to Pendra via Shahdol, Burhar and Amarkantak.2. Rewa-Shahdol is a notified route in the scheme No. 50 made under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This route under the scheme is reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation. The route Rewa-Pendra covers the entire route Rewa-Shabdol and goes beyond upto Pendra. In the permits, that were granted to the respondents, a condition has been imposed that the operators 'will not set down passengers from Rewa and places between Rewa and Shahdol and at Shahdol and similarly on the return journey between Shahdol and Rewa they will not pick up passengers a...
New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Smt. Molia Devi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP190; 1969MPLJ237
Tare, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. (F) Appeal No. 162 of 1965 D/- 17-12-1968, Dr. Sarvar Hussain v. Auto Instalment Co., Private Ltd. In both the cases a preliminary point has been raised to the effect that the appointment of the Additional District Judge as a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by official designation is invalid and, therefore, the Court below had no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of this, attention is invited to the observations of our brother, Naik J. In Lucky Bharat Garage (Private) Ltd., Raipur v. Smt. Shanti Devi, Civil Revn. No. 190 of 1966 D/- 27-9-1968 (MP). It may be necessary to examine the reasoning of our learned brother.2. The following Notification was Issued:'Notification No. 3307/2/A-2, Bhopal, dated 25 May, 1965/ Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, No. 4 of 1939. dh /kkjk O dh mi/kkjk 2 }kjk iznk'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx esa ykrs gq;s] jkT; 'kklu ,rn~}kjk] - izFke vfrj ftyk ,oal= U;k;k/kh'k] fcykliqj] 2- vfrfjDr ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore Vs. Bombay General Stores, Sha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP213; 1969MPLJ224; [1969]23STC449(MP)
G.P. Singh, J.1. This is a reference as stated by the Sales Tax Tribunal (Board of Revenue) at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The facts stated are that the Bombay General Stores, Shahdol is a dealer registered under Section 7, Central Sales Tax Act, and in its certificate of registration certain goods are specified as being intended for re-sale. The dealer made purchases of goods specified in the certificate of registration and also goods not so specified on payment of concessional rate of tax after furnishing 'C' forms to the selling dealer. The Sales Tax Officer held that the dealer by making purchases of goods not specified in the certificate of registration on furnishing 'C' forms deprived the Government of its rightful revenue and committed the offence defined in Section 10(b) of the Act. Instead of prosecuting the dealer for the offence, the Sales Tax Officer imposed upon it a penalty of Rs. 2,500 as permissible under Section 10A of the Act. In appeal filed by the...
Ghanshyamdas Badrilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP186; 1970MPLJ22
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 323 of 1968.2. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, one by a person carrying on the business of sale and purchase of cotton at Sanyogitaguni market yard, Indore, and another by a cultivator selling cotton produced by him at the said market yard, challenging the legality of an order under Rule 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) issued to the Market Committee established for the Indore market area under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing that transactions in the sale and purchase of cotton shall be effected only in the principal market yard of the Indore market area, namely, Laxmibai Nagar market yard and nowhere else.3. The matter arises thus. On 23rd September 1953 the Madhya Bharat Government issued a notification under Section 4 (1)...
Banku Bihari Saha Vs. State Government of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP210; 1969MPLJ128
Singh, J.1. The petitioner was holder of a quarry lease for lime stone for a period of five years commencing from 3rd November, 1961. Under Clause (3) of the lease, he was liable to pay royalty at the rate of 10 per cent of the sale value at the pit's mouth subject to a minimum of 0.50 paise per ton for lime stone, 0.75 paise per ton for slacked lime and Re. 1 per ton for unslacked lime. This was also the rate of royalty then prescribed for lime stone in Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1961. There was a proviso to Clause (3) of the lease, which enabled the lessor to revise the rate of royalty every five years commencing from the date of the lease. By a notification dated 9th December, 1965 Schedule I to the Minor Minerals Rules was amended by the State Government and the rate of royalty for lime stone was fixed at Rs. 2 per tonne from 1st January, 1966. For the period after 1st January, 1966, the petitioner was assessed to royalty by the Mining Officer at the rat...
H.M. Esufali, H.M. Abdulali Siyagunj Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP134; 1969MPLJ228; [1969]24STC1(MP)
Dixit, C.J. 1. In this consolidated reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the questions which have been stated for our decision at the instance of the assessee are:'1. Whether an the facts and circumstances of the case the revised assessment enhancing the taxable turnover under the State Law by Rs. 2,50,000/- and the taxable turnover under the Central Law by Rs. 1,00,000/- on the basis of the undisputed escape in the amount of Rupees 31,171.28 by adopting the said amount of escaped turnover as the measure for determining the quantum of enhancement for the whole year was illegal, unjustified or excessive? 2. Whether a best judgment assessment could at all be made under Section 19 (1) of the Act or whether revision of the assessment should be confined to the quantum of proved or admitted escaped turnover? 3. If the answer to the previous question is that the revision in the assessment should be confined only to the quantum of proved or admitted esc...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›