Madhya Pradesh Court August 1971 Judgments
Vallabhdas and ors. Vs. Sikanya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1973MP116; 1972MPLJ837
Dude, J.1. By this petition and the connected petitions (Misc. Petition No. 41 of 1969 and Misc. Petition No. 42 of 1969) tinder Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the vires of Madhya Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Debt Relief Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) and the Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) and prayed for a direction that the order of Debt Relief Court constituted under the enactments and the order in revision by the Collector be quashed.2. The other petitions (Misc. Peti-tion No. 41 of 1969 (Vallabhdas and 3 Ors. v. Dhanna and 3 Ors.) and Misc. Petition No. 42 of 1969 (Vallabhdas and 3 Ors. v. Navalsingh and 3 Ors.) raise substantially the same points and shall be disposed of by this order.3. The petitioners who are moneylenders advanced some money to Su-kanya who is admittedly a member of the Scheduled Tribe and is residing in a Scheduled area. The ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Nazarali Mills Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1971
Reported in: 1972MPLJ121; [1973]31STC243(MP)
K.L. Pandey, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, has, acting under Section 13(1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, which would hereinafter be called the Act, referred to this court for its opinion the following questions of law :(a) Whether the exemption which has to be granted to a manufacturer of cloth on the sales of cloth made by him to a registered dealer in accordance with the provisions of para 2 of the Government of Madhya Bharat Notification No. 4, dated the 22nd May, 1950, can be refused if the dealer does not file before the assessing authority the statement in form (sic) prescribed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Bharat, in his Notification No. 1, dated 14th October, 1950, within the time mentioned in that notification and he does not produce at the time of assessment the declarations in form (sic) prescribed by the same notifications?(b) Whether the exemption under para 2 of the Government notification refer...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Rao Vithobaji Parate Vs. Laxman Parasram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1973MP17; 1972MPLJ822
A.P. Sen, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Second Appeals Nos. 732 of 1970, 54 of 1971 and Civil Revision No. 51 of 1971 also.These cases were heard together as they involve common question of law.2. The plaintiff, Mahadeorao is a non-alienating coparcener. All the other members of the joint Hindu family of Which he is a member, his brothers. Khushalrao. Ganpatrao, Shamrao and Vasantrao and his mother. Mst. Savitribai, joined in alienating certain items of joint family property. The plaintiff thereupon brought suits to impeach the alienations, claiming a declaration that the alienations were not binding on him as they were not for legal necessity. He, therefore, claimed possession of the alienated property from the purchasers. Those suits were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that there was no joint family in existence. That decree was affirmed in appeal in two of the suits. In the other two suits, the decree was, however, reversed. Both the parties, therefore, appealed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Onkarlal Ganga Prashad Vs. Sardar Khan Rasoal Khan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP52; 1971MPLJ998
S.M.N. Raina, J.1. This Is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner applied for allotment of the land in dispute under Section 162 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code which was subsequently repealed. This application was allowed and the land in question was allotted to the petitioner on 26-11-1960. Subsequently on an objection filed against the allotment the Tehsildar reviewed the order of allotment by an order dated 5-3-1962 and the grant of Patta was set aside. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the said order which was disallowed on 8-6-1962. He, thereupon, preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner which was allowed on 31-12-1963 and the case was remanded to tile S. D. O. for a fresh decision of the appeal. On remand, the S. D. O. by an order dated 27-1-1965 set aside the order of the Tehsildar and remanded the case for considering afresh the question of review. On a reconsideration, the Tehsildar again set aside...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Rajula Bai Vs. Suka Dukali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP57; 1971MPLJ1014
Singh, J. 1. This is a wife's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The appellant applied for a declaration that her marriage with the respondent was a nullity as the respondent was already married to one Sanoti, who was living at the time the respondent married the appellant. In the alternative, it was prayed that a decree for divorce be passed against the respondent on the ground that he was living in adultery. These grounds were negatived by the trial Court and the application of the wife was dismissed, 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised before us both the grounds and has argued that either a decree of nullity be passed in favour of the appellant or the marriage be dissolved by a decree of divorce. 4. We shall first take up the point regarding the respondent living in adultery. On this point, the appellant examined Kotia (P. W. 2). He stated that in a Barat the respondent was found committing sexual intercourse with two women, namely, Sahbin and Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatsingh and anr. Vs. Gurucharansingh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1973MP3; 1972MPLJ616
Krishnan, J.1. These revisions are by the respective defendants in suits based on promissory notes. They have been referred to a Divisional Bench by Tare, J. sitting as Single Judge. This departure from the established practice of getting such revision cases heard in Single Bench is due to the existence of the Single Bench ruling in Birdichand v. Akbar, Civil Revision No. 11 of 1968, decided at Indore on 6-3-1969 (Madh Pra), in which the defendant-debtor's objection was upheld to the effect that the adhesive revenue stamp on the pronote in that suit bore the word 'Bharat', and did not carry any indication that it had been issued by the State Government. As Tare, J. did not agree with this view he considered it necessary that the question should be answered by a Divisional Bench. As a matter of fact at about the same time as the making of this reference on 17-7-1970 the State Government had issued a notification, 'that all revenue stamps used on such instruments and bearing the words 'I...
Tag this Judgment!Gyanchand Vs. Shri C.L. Masurkar, District Judge and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: 1971MPLJ959; [1972]29STC142(MP)
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a petition by Gyanchand against whom an election petition has been filed and during the pendency of the election petition the records of the sales tax department were summoned by the election petitioner for the purpose of proving that the petitioner was a partner in the firm 'Nandram Shrawankumar'. An objection was filed before the Tribunal that the documents of the sales tax department could not be summoned in evidence under Section 49 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 49 are as follows:49. Disclosure of information by public servant.-(1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in evidence recorded under this Act other than evidence given before a criminal court shall, save as provided in Sub-section (3), be kept confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 18...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: 1971MPLJ1009; [1972]29STC413(MP)
G.P. Singh, J. 1. This judgment will govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 198, 199 and 200 all of 1970.2. These are three sales tax references made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue) at the instance of the dealer referring for our answer the following questions of law :(1) Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was an implied sale of packing material, namely, bardana and patti, along with sale of cloth bales, and the packing material was liable to tax under the State Act as well as under the Central Act?(2) 'Whether, on facts' and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that coal ash sold by the applicant was not coal for purposes of entry No, 2, Part II of the State Act but should be treated as residuary article for purposes of tax ?Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 198 of 1970 relates to assessment of sales tax payable under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›