Madhya Pradesh Court March 1971 Judgments
Jiwanmal Sons Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1971
Reported in: 1971MPLJ623; [1971]28STC41(MP)
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to quash an order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., holding that the Commissioner could pass an order under Section 45 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') within the time specified therein but no order could be passed after the expiry of that time-limit. 2. The petitioner had applied under Section 45 of the Act for rectification of a mistake on the ground that a certain document (application dated 23rd November, 1962) which had, at the time of the order, been thought to be non-existent, became available later on. The petitioner's application was made within two years from the date of the order. However, the application for rectification remained pending, and was not decided within two years from the date of the order. A question then arose whether the Commissioner had any power to rectify the mistake after the expiry of two years. 3. Section 45 enacts as follows : (1) The...
Tag this Judgment!Bhujbalsingh and ors. Vs. Arjun Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971MP200
Sen, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against an order of the Board of Revenue, dated 3rd September, 1969, declaring that the non-petitioner No. 1 held the suit land as a sub-tenant on 2nd October, 1951 and was, therefore, eligible to be declared as a pucca tenant under Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. 2. Placing reliance on the majority view in Ayyubkhan v. Fundilal, 3967 Rev. Nirnaya 516 (FB) Shri R. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to decide any question relating to the rights or title of the parties to the land as under Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, they were only concerned in accepting the deposits of the amounts and, therefore, the findings reached by them are of no legal consequence. He further contends that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon title to the land is not barred and, therefore, the m...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Palika Shivpuri Through Chief Municipal Officer Vs. Purshotamdas ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1253; 1971MPLJ681
A.P. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal, Under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the Municipal Council, Shivpuri, with the Leave of the Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Shivpuri, dated 14th August 1968, acquitting the respondents of an offence Under Section 155 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. The respondents carry on business of retail sale of cloth under the name and style, 'M/s. Vishnu Vaatra Bhandar' within the limits of the Municipality. On 11th December 1966, they imported 4 bales of cotton cloth worth -Rs. 7,666.34 by a truck belonging to M/s. Daily Transport Service, but they paid octroi on goods worth Rs. 3,185.68 only at the Kalar Bag Octori Out-post under octroi receipt, Ex. P. 2, as pei Bijaks, Exs. P. 4 to P. 8. They neither furnished any declaration in regard to the remaining goods worth Rs. 4,478,66 nor paid Rs. 44.79 due as ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Bharati and ors. Vs. M.P. Dube and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1971MP231; 1971MPLJ509
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order passed by the Collector, Seoni, on August 24, 1967 directing that Padmeshwar Bharati be put in possession of certain lands, which were the subject-matter of consolidation proceedings under Chapter XVI of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, (hereinafter called the Code), relating to village Gudma in district Seoni.2. Certain lands belonging to Smt. Alokabai, widow of Bhuwaneshwar Bharati, were involved in the consolidation proceedings. Bhuwaneshwar Bharati had died in the year 1937. Smt. Alokabai died in 1960. Ramkrishna Bharati had instituted a suit (Civil Suit No. 77-A of 1937) challenging the alleged adoption of Jaikrishna Bharati by Smt. Alokabai. That suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that Jaikrishna was not adopted by Smt. Alokabai.3. However, after the death of Smt. Alokabai, Padmeshwar Bharati claimed that he had been adopted by her. A C...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Kame Vs. the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1971
Reported in: 1971MPLJ582; [1971]28STC1(MP)
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a writ petition by Shri B.C. Kame who is the proprietor of Kame Photo Studio. He has two more branches--New Delhi Studio and P. Kame Studio, all in the city of Jabalpur. He carries on the business of buying and selling photographic goods. In the certificate of registration as dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act it is entered that he also uses the photographic goods as raw material for manufacture of other goods for sale. When he buys the goods outside the State of Madhya Pradesh he gives a declaration that he will either resell the goods or use them as raw material for manufacture of other goods for sale. He thus gets a concession in respect of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on his purchases. After getting those goods he either sells them to his customers here or uses them in three ways--(1) by taking photographs and supplying prints thereof, (2) by making enlargements for customers who bring their own negatives, and (...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP77; 1971MPLJ737
Raina, J. 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The Municipality of Mungaoli is a class III municipality. The Municipal Council Mungaoli was dissolved on 28-9-1967 and non-petitioner No. 3 was appointed as administrator thereof. Subsequently, general elections were held in the year 1970 and non-petitioners 4 to 7 were elected as members of the council from ward Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9. Petitioners 1 to 5 are the residents of wards 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 respectively and they have filed this petition challenging the election of non-petitioners 4 to 8 on the ground that the electoral rolls were not revised within 6 months of the election as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is urged that the election of the non-petitioners is illegal and liable to be set aside as the electoral rolls were not prepared according to law and the applicants and many others were deprived of their right to ...
Tag this Judgment!Panjumal Khan Chand Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971MP225
Shiv Dayal, J.1. The petitioner Firm challenges the validity of an orderpassed by the State of Madhya Pradesh fixing the minimum percentage of outturn of rice from paddy for the purposes of levy.2. Initially by GSR No. 1405 dated November 24, 1960, the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955) made the Madhya Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1960. In Clause 3 of that Order a licensed Miller was to sell to the Purchase Officer at the price payable under that Order, 25 per cent of the quantity held in stock by him at the commencement of that Order and thereafter, until such time as the Purchase Officer otherwise directs. 100 per cent of the total quantity of rice produced or manufactured by him in his Rice Mill every day. Later on, by GSR. No. 1677, dated November 6, 1967, the Government of India made the Madhya Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Second Amendment Order, 1967, whereby the expression ...
Tag this Judgment!Major Subhash Chandra Sarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: 1972MPLJ449
ORDERP.K. Tare, J.1. In this writ petition, Which is described as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, two questions are mainly involved. So far as Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned it will be out of the picture. Sub-clause (4) of Article 227 of the Constitution specifically excludes Courts-Martial from the operation of the article. It is as follows:Article 227(4).-Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces,Therefore, Court-Martial can in no sense be considered to be a Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. But the said bar does not find place in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, although Courts-Martial may not be considered to be Tribunals subordinate to the High Court or for the purposes of Article 136 of the Constitution of India subordinate to the Supreme Court, they will be am...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyamlal Soni Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ279MP
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a writ petition by Ghanshyamlal Soni who was appointed a Lecturer in a Government Junior Technical School in 1961. He has claimed several reliefs with which we will deal separately. It is necessary to give a short resume of facts which have given rise to this petition.2. In 1961 the Government of Madhya Pradesh published an advertisement for the post of Junior Lecturer in Government Junior Technical Schools, Madhya Pradesh. The qualification prescribed for the post was a degree in Science. The petitioner applied and on the 1st September 1961, he was appointed a Junior Lecturer (non-technical) in Science on a pay scale of Rs. 150-10-250. It was expressly mentioned in the order of his appointment that the designation as well as the pay scale were liable to be revised. Subsequently, in 1962 the Government declared the unified scale as well as the revised scale for these lecturers who were then called Lecturers (non-technical) in Government Junior Tech...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›