Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Phodal Hira and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP43; 1971CriLJ219; 1970MPLJ924
S. B. Sen, J.This case has been referred by Raina J. under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Chapter I of the High Court Rules, for decision of the following questions:(i) Whether under Section 147(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate is competent to issue a mandatory injunction for the removal of the existing obstruction which is necessary for maintaining status quo and prohibiting the other party from interfering with the right of the aggrieved party, until the matter is decided by a competent Civil Court. (ii) Whether the view expressed by the Nagpur High Court in King Emperor v. Abdullah, ILR (1949) Nag 388 = (AIR 1949 Nag 275) which was followed by this Court in State of M, P. v. Sheikh Ramzan, Criminal Revn. No. 56 of 1966, D/- 28-9-1966, vide 1967 Jab LJ (SN) 48 is correct. 2. The facts which have given rise to this reference are simple. An order under Section 147 Cr. P. C. has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate P. R. Datar. in Misc. Cr. Case No. 183 of 1965 aga...
The Kanhan Valley Coal Co. Private Ltd., Nagpur Vs. State of Madhya Pr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP75; 1970MPLJ821
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a petition by the Kanhan Valley Coal Company Private Limited, Nagpur. The petitioner had made an application for grant of a mining lease on 6th March 1952 over an area of 488.08 acres of land. Correspondence between the State Government and the petitioner continued upto 1967 and the State Government several times asked the petitioner whether it was agreeable to take a lease of only 148-38 acres of land. The petitioner always gave its consent to take the lease of that much of land but never made a fresh application for grant of a lease. Ultimately, on 23rd June 1967, the petitioner enquired as to what happened to its application for lease made in 1952. In reply dated 4th September 1967 the petitioner's attention was drawn to Rule 24 (3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, made under the Mining Act. This rule is as follows:-- 'If any application is not disposed of within the period specified in Sub-rule (1), it shall be deemed to have been refused.' A...
Raghvendra Singh and ors. Vs. Marhu and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP142; 1971MPLJ4
Pandey, J.1. This appeal under the Letters Patent arises out of a judgment delivered by Singh J. in Second Appeal No. 636 of 1964 dated August 12, 1968 whereby a suit for possession of an abadi site situate in village Durg was dismissed.2. The material facts, which are no longer in dispute, are these, Ghanshyamsingh (plaintiff 3), who was the proprietor of village Durg, leased out to the defendants, by a document Ex. P-15 dated July 10, 1947, the disputed abadi site for building their house in return for Rs 2.50 as monthly rent on condition that they would deliver vacant possession of the site on fifteen days notice. Thereupon, the defendants built on the site a house which they continue to occupy. Subsequently, by a registered document Exhibit P-16 dated May 24, 1948, Ghanshyamsingh transferred to his wife Smt. Jaidevi, without any consideration, all the house sites in the abadi of village Durg on terms and conditions therein stated. On the death of Smt. Jaidevi on March 7, 1950, Ragh...
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales T ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1970
Reported in: 1969MPLJ83; [1973]32STC93(MP)
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a reference Under Section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act. The point referred is :Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 7,500 imposed on the applicant Under Section 43(1) of the Act was so imposed lawfully and for reasons sustainable in law.2. The facts are not in dispute. During the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee collected Rs. 3,10,252.48 and Rs. 5,161.46 as sales tax upon its turnover from its customers. While filing its return, it did not show this amount as part of the turnover. The Sales Tax Officer added back this amount and enhanced the sales tax by Rs. 15,617.85. Since these amounts of sales tax had not been shown in the turnover, penalty proceedings were started and a sum of Rs. 7,500 has been imposed as penalty.3. The contention on behalf of the assessee is that there was no intention either to conceal the income or to file a false return within the meaning of Section 43(1) of the M.P. General Sales...
The Wainganga Club Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC542(MP)
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 134 and 135 of 1969. These are three connected references under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. In all these cases the Board of Revenue by its ultimate order directed a remand of the case to the assessing officer after giving its opinion on question of law to take fresh proceedings for assessment.2. The facts may shortly be stated as follows: The assessee was a members' club in Balaghat. It purchased liquor which is alleged to have been for consumption by its members. For the three periods which are in question in the three matters the Assistant Sales Tax Officer assessed the sales tax payable by the assessee. The assessee, however, contended that it was not a dealer at all and could not be assessed. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who agreed with the assessee and held that the assessee not being a dealer could not be...
Laxmi Chand Badri NaraIn Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP74; 1971MPLJ21; [1971]27STC211(MP)
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. The judgment in this case shall govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 157 of 1969. 2. These are two references under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The assessee is engaged in dehusking paddy and, after polishing it, converting it into rice, and converting other grains into dal and thereafter selling them. The assessee was assessed to tax on the basis that this amounted to a process of manufacture and the assessee challenged the correctness of that decision. 3. The questions referred in this case are as follows:-- (i) Are paddy and other grains before dehusking raw material as denned under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958? (ii) Does dehusking of paddy into rice or of other grains into dal amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958? (iii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case levy of tax under Section 7 read wi...
The Agricultural Implements Dealers Syndicate Vs. the Commissioner of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC227(MP)
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The applicant filed his return in 1961 for sales during the previous year. In that return he showed a turnover of Rs. 1,16,215 and 11 annas as sales of kutti machines, but he claimed that this turnover was exempt from tax as kutti machine was an agricultural implement. This view was at first accepted by the Board of Revenue in 1964, but later on it was reversed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court has also held that kutti machine is not an agricultural implement and, therefore, not exempt from tax. The applicant has however been assessed to sales tax on this turnover and the sales tax authorities have also imposed a penalty of Rs. 900 under Section 43(1) of the Act.2. The applicant contended that his case was not covered by Section 43(1) of the Act and no penalty could, therefore, be imposed. The following question has accordingly been referred to this court :Whether, under t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›