Madhya Pradesh Court October 1970 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chotelal Kanhaiylal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR656(MP)
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the purpose of calculating the tax with reference to which the penalty was leviable in the case of a registered firm under Section 271(1) read with Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the tax payable by such firm should be determined after deducing the advance tax paid by the partners under Section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of their shares of profits from the firm from the gross tax payable by the firm on the basis that it was an unregistered firm ?'2. The assessee-respondent is a firm having four partners. The relevant year is 1958-59, the return for which was filed by the firm on 8th July, 1959, i.e., it was filed 11 months after the due date. In the assessment year the firm was registered and had made a depos...
Tikamchand Sualalji Agrawal Vs. the Joint Registrar Co-operative Socie ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP86; 1971MPLJ110
Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore on March 20, 1968 and the order passed in revision by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal on August 1, 1968. 2. The relevant facts are that a dispute against the petitioner was referred by the Kendriya Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar, Indore for adjudication to the Deputy Registrar. The petitioner made an application on March 20, 1968 praying that permission be granted to him for being represented by an Advocate. He also prayed that he should be allowed to engage an Advocate for inspecting the record. This application was rejected by the Deputy Registrar on March 20, 1968. The petitioner then went up in revision which was dismissed by the Joint Registrar on August 1, 1968. These are the orders which have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 3. Section 67(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 19...
Balwantsingh Vs. Collector, Shivpuri and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP204
Raina, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Garh on 31-7-1970. In a meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 15-9-1970 a motion of no-confidence was passed against him. In pursuance of the said resolution he was directed to hand over charge of his office vide annexure 'G'. The contention of the petitioner is that the motion of no-confidence was not passed by the requisite majority and even otherwise it was not in accordance with law. It is, therefore, of no effect and the petitioner is entitled to continue in the office. He has therefore, filed this petition seeking a writ quashing the no-confidence motion passed on 15-9-1970.2. The Collector Shivpuri who is non-petitioner No. 1 has filed a return denying the claim of the petitioner. According to the facts stated in the return, the motion of no-confidence was duly passed and as a result thereof the petitioner has automatically ceased to hold the office...
R.S. Seth Gopikisan Agrawal and Sons Vs. Shri C.L. Sharma, Assistant C ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1970
Reported in: 1971MPLJ271; [1971]28STC106(MP)
ORDERP.K. Tare, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, dated 25th January, 1968 (petitioner's annexure 'C') passed as a best judgment assessment on the premises that the petitioner had failed to furnish any proof in respect of the contentions raised by him in his return whereby he sought an exemption from sales tax in respect of certain transactions in the nature of inter-State sales and sales to outside people in the course of export.2. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 24th September, 1962, (respondents' annexure 1), for submitting returns for the period from 21st October, 1960, to 8th November, 1961. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the returns were submitted beyond the prescribed date. Thereafter the petitioner went on filing applications before the assessing authority (respondent No. 1) for adjournment of the case sine die an...
Steel Workers Union Vs. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and Appell ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP93; [1971(22)FLR379]; (1971)ILLJ101MP; 1971MPLJ57
Singh, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by a registered and representative union of the workers employed in Bhilai Steel Plant and is directed against an order passed on December 18, 1967 by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) functioning as Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 2. The facts giving rise to this Petition are that the Bhilai Steel Plant was originally started by the Central Government in 1955 as a departmental undertaking. The undertaking was transferred to M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited, a Government owned company, with effect from March 31, 1957. During the period the Steel Plant was run as a departmental undertaking, the leave rules relating to the Central Government employees were made applicable to the employees of the Plant. After the transfer of the undertaking to the company the Board of Directors of the company decided to continue the leave rules then applicable to the employees till the co...
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the Regional Trans ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP76
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a petition by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against an order of the Regional Transport Authority refusing to grant temporary permits to the petitioner. The relevant facts are that Scheme No. 60 was sanctioned and published in December, 1965, and it came into operation from 19th March 1966. Among other routes, the one route which is now in dispute is from Jagdalpur to Bailadilla. A portion of this route from Gedam to Bailadilla was to be of conjoint operation with other while the routes from Jagdalpur to Bhopalpattnam and Jagdalpur to Sukmakotma were routes of exclusive operation by the Corporation. In paragraph 10 of this scheme there was a provision as follows:--'Facilities of extra buses to clear extra traffic on the route during peak season or during fairs and festivals will be provided to avoid any inconvenience to the travelling public.'On the strength of this provision in the Scheme the Corporation made an application on 22n...
Champalal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP88; 1971MPLJ97
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus to hold the election of 5 Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, Piprai, and not to give effect to the order of the Collector dated November 4, 1969, whereby the notification calling the election was cancelled.2. Under the M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962, election to the Gram Panchayat, Piprai, was held and the petitioner was elected a Panch from ward No. 3. The Panchayat consists of 18 elected and 3 selected Panchas.3. Komalchand Jain was elected Sarpanch under Section 21 of the Act, but on June 22, 1967, he resigned. He, however, continued to work upto July 31, 1967. On the last mentioned date, the charge was handed over by Komalchand Jain to the Up-Sarpanch Ejaz Ahmed. Ejaz Ahmed acted as Sarpanch exactly for one year.4. On July 31, 1968, a fresh election of the Sarpanch was held. The petitioner was elected the Sarpanch.On September 2, 1968, the election of Champalal as Sarpanch was notified.On Septe...
Pancham Ramcharan Vs. the Collector, Dist. Bhind and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP97; 1971MPLJ50
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the election of a Panch for the Gram Panchayat, Barathara. 2. It is stated in the petition that the last general election of the Panchayat was held on May 23, 1970. Nathuram (respondent No. 4) and Laxminarayan (respondent No. 5) were candidates from ward No. 2. The said Nathuram was declared elected. 3. The petitioner is a voter. His contentions are: (1) The voters list was not prepared as required by the rules, framed under Section 5, of the Election and Co-option Rules, 1963. (2) The voters list became final when it was published in the Gazette dated March 30, 1970, but 8 names were added in the voters list 'after 1-5-70.' In the petition, the significance of that date is not stated but before us it is said that on that date nomination papers were filed and scrutinised. Addition of names after the date of nomination was not permissible under the rules. (3) Nathuram was disqualified inasmuch as he w...
Mahendra Singh Vs. the Collector, Gwalior and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP83; 1971MPLJ74
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the proceedings of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Parsen, District Gwalior, in which a resolution of no confidence was passed by the Gram Panchayat against the petitioner, the Sarpanch of that Panchayat. 2. The petitioner was elected Sarpanch in the year 1964 under the M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962. In the new elections which were held in June and July 1970, he was again elected a Panch and in the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat which was held on August 4, 1970, he was again elected Sarpanch. 3. On August 21, 1970 a few Panchas gave a notice to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat of their desire to move a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. The Secretary then convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of Section 24 of the Act. On September 18, 1970, a meeting was held and the motion of no-confidence was passed by all the 11 members who were present and who voted. 4. It ...
Smt. Vraj Kuwar Bai and ors. Vs. Kunjbiharilal Krishnachandra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP109; 1971MPLJ44
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 1963.2. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a suit for specific performance filed by Kunjbeharilal against three partners Bechar Bhai, Rupchand and Brijdas of firm Diamond Trading Company, Raipur. The case of the plaintiff was that the partners of the firm, on behalf of the firm, agreed to sell malik makbuza rights in half share of certain fields which were partnership property, by agreement dated 22nd January, 1947. The document was executed by Rupchand, one of the partners, on behalf of the firm. On 4th November, 1947, Brijdas another partner of the firm, confirmed the agreement. The plaintiff alleged that he was always willing to perform his part of the contract, but that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed in spite of service of registered notice. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that the defendants be directed to execute a sale deed on payment of the balance of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »