Madhya Pradesh Court September 1972 Judgments
Jaswantlal Prahlad Bhai and Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1972
Reported in: 1973MPLJ331; [1973]31STC635(MP)
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the assessee to answer the following question referred to this court for its opinion :Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of extra penalty amounting to Rs. 5,000 in addition to the minimum mandatory penalty of Rs. 71,376 was justified? 2. The facts leading to the present reference are as follows : The petitioner-firm was assessed to sales tax for the period from 25th October, 1965, to 12th October, 1966. It had given a declaration in form XII-A in respect of tendu patta purchased to the extent of Rs. 20,66,830. The other purchases by import amounted to Rs. 6,283, while goods purchased without declaration amounted to Rs. 1,72,540.52. The sales tax authorities found that the petitioner-firm had exported 85 per cent. of the produced goods, namely, manufactured bidis, outside the State. The petitioner-firm had been allowed to make purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Gram Panchayat, Gorakhpur Vs. Khushali Dindayal Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP19; 1973MPLJ105
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This matter has been referred to this Full Bench to interpret the phrase 'subject to rules' in Section 244 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959. (hereinafter called the Land Revenue Code). The Division Bench which referred this matter to us saw an apparent conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Ithoba v. Collector of Chhindwara, Misc. Petn. No. 277 of 1962, decided on 26-10-1962 = 1964 MPLJ (SN) 18 and Bhagwat Prasad v. Government of M. P., 1966 MPLJ 557.2. The question before us is :--Whether the phrase 'subject to rules made in this behalf' in Section 244 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959, connotes that until the contemplated rules are framed, the Gram Panchayat or the Tahsildar cannot exercise the power conferred on them for disposal of abadi sites.3. The words 'subject to rules made in this behalf' or similar words are commonly employed in enactments, where the legislature contemplates framing of rules in exercise of delegated powers. We ...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Rai Vs. Board of Revenue, Gwalior and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP1
Shiv Dayal, J.1. The competent authority (the Collector Jabalpur) by his order dated December 31, 1965, provisionally declared 72.07 acres of land of the petitioner as surplus. Eventually by his order dated February 28, 1967, the Collector, rejecting the objections of the petitioner, confirmed his interim order and finally declared 72.07 acres of land as surplus. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Ceiling Act, read with Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code. The Additional Commissioner affirmed the order of the Collector, The petitioner then filed a revision in the Board of Revenue. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue, relying on an earlier decision of the Board in Shivgovind v. State of M. P., 1968 Revenue Nirnaya 400, held that the revision did not lie and dismissed it accordingly. The petitioner then filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, It was referred to this Bench along with Misc. Petn. No. 480 of 1968. (Madh Pra) as ther...
Tag this Judgment!Kuar Indrajit Singh Vs. the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP22
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. Proceedings under Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. 1960 (hereinafter called the Ceiling Act) were taken against the petitioner. The competent authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Nasrullaganj) by his order dated Dec. 26. 1968, rejecting the petitioner's contentions directed draft statement to be published under Section 11 (3) of the Ceiling Act. Aggrieved by the draft statement, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 42 of the Act before the Revenue Commissioner. Bhopal Division. Bhopal. The Commissioner heard the revision and dismissed it on merits, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption under Section 3 (k) of the Ceiling Act. 2. Aggrieved by the Commissioner's order, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959, before the Board of Revenue. The learned President of the Board of Revenue relying on his decision in Shivgovind v. State of M. P.. 1968 Revenue Nirnaya 40...
Tag this Judgment!Ravishankar Dube and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP52; 1972MPLJ149
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue, holding that no second appeal, or revision under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, (hereinafter called 'the Code' or 'the Revenue Code') lies from an order passed under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act' or 'the Ceiling Act'). 2. The Division Bench, which referred to the larger Bench this case for decision, found conflicting views expressed by earlier Division Benches. 3. The questions arising for our decision, which have to be determined on a true construction of Sections 41 and 42 of the Ceiling Act and Sections 44 and 50 of the Revenue Code, are:-- (1) Whether a second appeal lies under Section 44 (2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, from an order passed in an appeal under Section 41 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. (2) Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Nanda Kishore Bhatt and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1974MP140; 1974MPLJ184
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is an election petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5, were elected as representatives of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Council of States at the last elections. The petitioner who was also a candidate at the said election has by this petition challenged the election of the respondents on various grounds as stated in the petition.3. Sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requires that at the time of presenting an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit in the High Court a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as security for the costs of the petition. The petitioner has not deposited any amount as security so far. He has, however, filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 117 of the Act praying that the amount of security may be reduced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 250/- or in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sheocharan Radheshyam Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1972
Reported in: 1973MPLJ341; [1973]31STC480(MP)
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. On an order passed by this court, the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, was required to refer the following question for consideration by this court:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the dyes and colours imported on C form declaration could be held to have been used in such a manner as to absolve the dealer from liability for penalty for infringement of Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 2. The present reference arose on the following facts: The respondent was a registered dealer as per Section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In his application for registration in form Aappended to the application vide item No. 16, the respondent had mentioned the following particulars :Item 16.-The following goods or classes of goods are purchased by the dealer in the course of inter-State trade for resale or for use in manufacture of goods for sale or for use in the execution of contracts :(a) lwr](b) jax]fQVdjh] ukbVz~sV] lksMk] lks...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Godabai Vs. Narayan Zingaji
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP4; 1972MPLJ1042
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the wife according to Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), against the judgment and decree dated October 15, 1971, passed by the learned District Judge. Chhindwara, dismissing her application filed under Section 10(2) of the Act for rescission of the decree for judicial separation passed against her in an earlier proceeding (Civil Suit No. 11-A of 1969, decided on December 24, 1969).2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. On an application made by the respondent, claiming judicial separation on the ground of cruelty under Clause (b), Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, a decree for judicial separation had been passed against the appellant on December 24. 1969. The application under Section 10(2) of the Act was filed on July 20, 1971, by the appellant. The only ground urged in support of the application was that the appellant was now repentant and she would not misbehave with the respondent as she did in the past...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Laxmilal Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1972
Reported in: 1973MPLJ311; [1973]31STC494(MP)
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, for answering the following ques tion by this court:Whether under the proviso to Section 38(3) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as it stood prior to 15th April, 1968, the part payment demanded by the appellate authority is relatable to the gross tax and penalty or the net demand of tax and penalty after assessment.2. The said question of law arises on the following facts : The respondent was assessed to sales tax for the period from 2nd November, 1964, to 21st October, 1965. An amount of Rs. 2,292.50 had been credited by the respondent as advance sales tax. As per the assessment order, dated 25th September, 1967, the respondent was assessed to a further sum of Rs. 365.15. Thus, the total assessment for the said period came to Rs. 2,657.65 out of which an amount of Rs. 2,292.50 had already been deposited as advance tax along with the quarterly return. The respondent, feelin...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Vs. Deoji and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1974MP123; 1973MPLJ434
S.R. Vyas, J. 1. This opinion will also govern the disposal of Civil Revn. No. 42 of 1971 (Shivji v. Chunnilal and Ors.). 2. Facts giving rise to the present revision application which has been referred to this Bench, may briefly be stated as thus:-- Opponents 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of some agricultural lands against the applicant and opponents 4 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). Inthis suit a decree for Rs. 700.00, claimed as mesne profits upto the date of suit for one year, future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 700/- per annum and for possession was passed. The applicant feeling aggrieved with this decree preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge. On the memorandum of this appeal he paid court-fees only on the decretal amount of mesne profits claimed upto the date of the suit and did not pay court-fees on that amount of mesne profits for which a decr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »