Madhya Pradesh Court October 1973 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State Bank of Indore Vs. Jasroop Baijnath Joint Hindu Family Firm, San ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1974MP193; 1974MPLJ329
Sohani, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 11th August, 1967, passed by Shri Justice H. R. Krishnan in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 1965, partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 24th December. 1964. passed by the third Additional District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 16 of 1958.2. The judgment-debtors, who are respondents in this appeal, are a joint Hindu family firm. During the depression in the thirties they fell on bad times and had to take financial assistance from the Bank of Indore Limited (The State Bank of Indore. Limited, as it is now styled), the appellant in this case. There were diverse dealings between the parties but there are two transactions only which are material for the purpose of this appeal. By one transaction the respondents mortgaged their property situated at Indore, with the appellant, to secure repayment of a loan advanced to them by the appellant. This transaction is hereinafter refe...
Ram Ratan Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1974MP101; 1974MPLJ95
Tare. C.J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an excise contractor Challenging the order, dated 22-12-1970 (Petitioner's Annexure P/1), passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Excise, Gwalior, and Recovery Officer, issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 4,905/- should not be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue towards the loss suffered by the Government in re-auctioning the licence for a liquor shop.2. The case had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by one of us (namely, Raina, J. and Dwivedi, J.), which by order, dated 22-3-1972 referred the entire case for decision by a Full Bench, as Interpretation of Article 299 of the Constitution of India was involved, on which different opinions have been expressed in some cases. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the entire case as no particular question has been referred to us by the Division Bench for our opinion.3. Th...
Chhotalal Keshavram Vs. Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1973
Reported in: 1974MPLJ148; [1974]33STC456(MP)
ORDERP.K. Tare, C.J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 429 of 1971 (Chhotelal Keshavram through its partner Jayantilal, etc. v. 1. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon, 2. Additional Tahsildar, Sales Tax Recovery-cum-Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Durg). These two writ petitions between the same parties were heard tegether, although they involve slightly different questions. This order shall govern the disposal of both these cases; but we shall have to deal with them separately.2. We first take up Misc. Petition No. 835 of 1972 wherein the order dated 10th July, 1972 (petitioner's annexure A-2) passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, is challenged on the ground that after the petitioner's case had been decided by the Supreme Court in his favour, the Legislature had no legislative competence to validate the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, retrospectively so as to set at naught the S...
The Collective Farming Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1974MP59; 1974MPLJ1
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This case was referred to this Full Bench for two reasons: (1) The vires of Section 91 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, was in doubt, and (2) the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Premnarain v. Shilpakar Sahakari Mazdoor Sangh Ltd. 1971 Jab LJ 924, was in doubt. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to quash certain orders passed by the State Government effecting supersession or continuation of supersession of the Committee of petitioner No. 1 Collective Farming Society, Ltd,. Lilakheri (hereinater called the petitioner-society) and to direct the respondents by a writ of mandamus to handover charge of the society to the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who claim to be duly elected President. Secretary and Treasurer of the petitioner-society. 3. Facts material for the questions, which have been raised before us may be briefly stated thus: (i) The petitioner-society is a registered co-operative society of culti...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›