Madhya Pradesh Court December 1971 Judgments
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bootasingh Gopal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP116; 1972MPLJ392
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This appeal preferred by the State Government is directed against the Judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Kanker, dated 16-6-1967 whereby the learned Judge has granted to the plaintiff a decree for:-- (i) a declaration that the State Government was in breach of the forest contract granted to him by ordering a stoppage of working and, therefore, not entitled to recover Rs. 35,625/- towards the balance of the auction price; (ii) a permanent injunction restraining the State Government from recovering that amount as arrears of land revenue or otherwise, and (iii) refund of Rs. 4,750/- representing the security deposit. 2. Facts leading to the appeal may be shortly stated. On 17-8-1962, the plaintiff purchased the right to fell and extract bamboos from Coupe No. 'A' Walhar O/B. F.S. Kanker Division, at a public auction held by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kanker, for Rs. 47,500/-. The purchase price was payable in 4 instalments. Rs. 11,875/-were payable...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Rani Duleiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: 1972MPLJ232
Bhave, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has referred the following question for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty could be levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1962-63 ?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Rani Duleiya is a partner of the firm, Messrs. Agarwal & Co., which was registered under the Income-tax Act. Her three minor sons are also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee and her sons were separately assessed in respect of their shares from the firm. In the return filed by her, she had not included in her total income the shares of profit of her minor sons from the firm. She had, however, pointed out in Part III(c) of the return that the particulars were 'as per firm's return'. Part III(c) of the form of return requires that the assessee should show the relationship with other partners which she had tailed to mention. After the as...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Rao Krishna Rao Kinhekar Vs. Gram Panchayat, Lanji and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP83; 1972MPLJ240
Bhave, J. 1. The petitioner, who was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Lanji, district Balaghat. has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolution of no-confidence dated 30-1-1971 passed by the Panchas of the said Gram Panchayat. 2. On 26-10-1970, a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner, but it was defeated. On 9-1-1971. a fresh requisition notice was served for moving a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. A meeting was held on 30-1-1971 when the no-confidence motion was passed. The main contention of the petitioner is that the second resolution of no-confidence could not have been moved within six months of the first no-confidence motion defeated on 26-10-1970. Reliance is placed on Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act. 1962, which reads as under: '31. No subject once finally disposed of by Gram Panchayat shall be reconsidered by it within six months unless the recorded consent of not...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dhana Bai Vs. Smt. Kewara Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP100; 1972MPLJ227
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This appeal filed by the plaintiff-landlord is directed against a decree of the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, dated 12-4-1967 reversing the judgment of the First Civil Judge Class II, Raipur, dated 30-11-1965 and dismissing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages. The appeal has been referred to , larger Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as the questions involved are of general importance.2. The facts leading to the appeal may be shortly stated. The plaintiff sought ejectment of the defendants under Section 12(1)(a)(b) and (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The defendants contested her claim and pleaded * that the parties did not stand in the relation of landlord and tenant. Their plea was that the transaction embodied in the registered sale deed dated 28-6-1960(Ex. P-15) was, in reality, a mortgage by conditional sale. That plea has not prevailed in the Courts below, and it has been found that the transact...
Tag this Judgment!Balmukand, Vs. the Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP105
Bhave, J. 1. The petitioners' revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, passed under the Madhva Predesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act was rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. For doing so the Board of Revenue relied on its previous decisions.2. In Kale Khan v. Board of Revenue, 1970 MPLJ 917 it has been held by this Court that 'Revenue Officers exercising appellate powers under Section 41 of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act function in their official capacity as revenue officers and not as individuals in private capacity; their official capacity is determined by Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code. The orders passed by them are open to revision under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.' In this view of the matter it must be heldthat the order of the Board of Revenue was erroneous.3. Shri Baipai, Deputy Advocate General urged before us that the aforesaid decision in Kale...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council, Dhamtari, Through Its President Shri P.K. Pawar Vs. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP142; 1972MPLJ297
Bhave, J.1. By order dt. 13-10-1971 passed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 328 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, the Municipal Council, Dhamtari, was dissolved. The Council has, therefore, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing that order.2. Dhamtari Municipality has an annual income of more than Rs. 5,00,000/-. As such it can have an engineer for the efficient discharge of its duties as is provided for in Section 88 of the Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That section further provides that the engineer shall belong to the State Municipal Service and shall be appointed by the State Government. Section 94 of the Act also provides that the specified officers, which expression also includes an engineer, cannot be appointed by the Municipal Council without the previous sanction of the State Government. It appears that no engineer was appointed by the State Government in spite of repeated reque...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandan Bai Vs. Surjan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP106; 1972MPLJ216
Singh, J. 1. This appeal comes before us on a reference made by one of us. 2. The appellant Chandanbaifiled a suit for eviction against therespondent Surjan in 1964 on two grounds under Section 12(1) of the MadhyaPradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The first ground was under Clause (a) of the said provision that the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent within two months of the service of notice of demand. The second ground was under Clause (e) that thehouse was required bona fide by the plaintiff for residential purposes. Thedefendant in his written statement denied the existence of these grounds. Duringthe pendency of the suit, the parties, on December 15, 1965, entered into a compromise which was filed in Court and a decree was passed on its basis on thefollowing terms:-- (1) That the plaintiff's claim for ejectment and possession be and is hereby decreed. (2) That the defendant shall be allowed time to vacate the house till 31-12-1968 and till that time the decree shall n...
Tag this Judgment!Jwala Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP111; 1972MPLJ381
Bhave, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the order dated 25-5-1966 (Annexure F) passed by the Board of Revenue as well as its order dated 11-11-1969 (Annexure G) refusing to review its order are under challenge. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was a Pawaidar of mouza Judmaniya, Tahsil Huzur, District Rewa. The pawai was resumed on 1-7-1954 under the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Abolition Act). In accordance with the provisions of the said Act, the petitioner applied to the Tahsildar for allotment of Sir and Khudkasht lands in Pawai. The Tahsildar allotted 80.33 acres of land to the petitioner by his order dated 9-10-1957. That order was, however, set aside by the Collector and the case was remanded to the Tahsildar for further enquiry. On remand the Tahsildar passed a fresh order on 24-5-1961 allotting lower area to the petitioner. He, therefore, preferred an appeal before t...
Tag this Judgment!Balchand Meghraj Pamnani and anr. Vs. Basantidewi Ramswaroop and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP157; 1972MPLJ812
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. This is a revision from an order dated August 10, 1971 whereby the trial Court has postponed the decision of Issues Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 till the decision of the entire suit. The grievance in this revision is that those issues are preliminary issues and the trial Court was bound to decide them first. In not doing so, the trial Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction and this Court must interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondents Basanti Devi and Babulal have instituted this suit against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the allegation that they deposited the amount with the defendants, but they are not returning the amount. The suit is resisted by the defendants on several grounds. Six issues were framed in the trial Court, the seventh being a formal issue. They may be reproduced here:--1 D;k oknh QeZ dh oknh dh vksj ls izfroknhds ;gka fnukad 27&9&67 dks 4000 pkj gtkj :i;k tek djk;kvkSj izfroknh us bl ckcr j...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1971
Reported in: [1973]31STC575(MP)
ORDERR.J. Bhave, J.1. The assessee used to deal in oil-seeds. In the assessment proceedings for the year 1963-64 he raised an objection that the provisions in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, regarding the levy of sales tax on oil-seeds are repugnant to Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and, as such, are void and illegal and that no sales tax on oil-seeds can be recovered from him. The objection was overruled by the assessing authority on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to decide the vires of the Act under which it was constituted. The assessee has, therefore, filed the present petition with a prayer that the assessment proceedings be quashed.2. Article 286(3) of the Constitution provides :(3) Any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »