Madhya Pradesh Court January 1971 Judgments
Mata Prasad Anantram Vs. Election Officer (Nirbachan Adhikari) Panchay ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1971MP136
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper which was filed to contest the election to the Gram Panchavat Budhara under the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1662, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The election of Panchas to the Gram Panchayat Budhara was to be held on May 20, 1970. The petitioner Mate Prasad and respondent No. 3, Munshi Singh, submitted nomination papers. On the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, an objection was raised by the respondent No. 2. Udaisingh, to the effect that the petitioner owed more than Rs. 400/-in connection with the construction work which meant that he had not repaid the amount up to that date. The amount had been given to him in the capacity of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchavat. The petitioner contended that the amount was not due in respect of panchavat tax. However the Nirwachan Adhikari (Election Officer) respondent No. 1 accepted the objection and rejected the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Lekhraj Diddi Vs. Sawan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1971MP172; 1971MPLJ438
Pandey, J.1. This revision and two others, namely, Civil Revisions Nos. 203 and 204 of 1970, come before us on a reference made by Bhave, J. who has doubted the correctness of two earlier decisions of this Court. Before referring to the precise points in controversy, it is necessary to recall the facts of the case in the words of Bhave, J. himself:'The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant Sardar Sawan Singh had obtained a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- from Lekhraj Diddi, the non-applicant. It was alleged that the premises so purchased were given to the non-applicant on rent. The non-applicant, however, committed default in payment of rent and hence the applicant filed the suit for ejectment of the non-applicant. The non-applicant stated in his written statement that the sale deed was nominal and was not to be acted upon. The amount alleged to have been paid towards rent was, as a matter of fact, paid towards interest on the amount of Rs. 40,000...
Tag this Judgment!Premkumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ346MP; 1971MPLJ483
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Premkumar challenging the order of his dismissal.2. The petitioner was working as a clerk in the Postal Department. While on duty he quarrelled with another employee of the department and tried to beat him with a shoe. A criminal case was thereupon started and he was convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as a result of which he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. On appeal his conviction was maintained but he was given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and released after admonition. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, taking action under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, dismissed him from service by order dated 6th June, 1969 which runs as follows:Whereas Shri P.R. Damle, Clerk, Sausar has been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 353, IPC. And whe...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-1971
Reported in: 1971MPLJ444; [1971]28STC629(MP)
ORDERG.P. Singh, J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 120 of 1969.2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner calls into question the assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on 30th September, 1968, and 1st January, 1969, for the account years 1954-55 and 1955-56 respectively. The period covered in each year is from 1st August to 31st July.3. The petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. It has its factories in various States in India. One such factory is at Kymore in Madhya Pradesh. In these petitions we are concerned only with the sales made by the Kymore factory.The petitioner-company is a registered dealer under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. According to the assessment orders, the petitioner, for the year 1954-55, claimed that its turnover to the extent of Rs. 13,03,041.44 was in respect of sales which took place outside the State a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›