Madhya Pradesh Court November 1974 Judgments
Subhashchandra JaIn Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1174
A.P. Sen, J.1. This Order shall also govern Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 986, 994, 996, 1000 and 1006, all of 1974.These petitions have been heard on a preliminary point relating to jurisdiction. It would be convenient to deal with them by this common order,2. The petitioners challenge their detention under orders of detention made by the District Magistrates of Jabalpur and Bhopal under Section 3(1) (c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as amended by Ordinance No. 11 of 1974.3. On 16th November, 1974, the President of India issued the following order tinder Article 359(1) of the Constitution:In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution, the President hereby declares that:(a) The right to move any Court with respect to orders of detention which have already been made or which may hereafter be made under Section 3 (1) (c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as amended by Ordinance 11 of 1974, for the enforcement of t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Bhiwaniwala and ors. Vs. Nandkishore and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-1974
Reported in: AIR1975MP104
A.P. Sen, J.1. The case has been referred to the Full Bench for reconsideration of the decision in Tulsirarn Ramdayal v. Badriprasad Jankiprasad, ILR (1948) Nag 203 = (AIR 1949 Nag 31) and that in Shrikishan v. Mahadeo, 1959 MP LJ 50.2. There is no material point of fact which is now in dispute. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was brought by the appellants as trustees of Seth Kirodimal Charity Trust, for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000, as principal and Rs. 10,950 as interest, on the foot of a mortgage dated 18th November, 1953, as plaintiffs, against the respondents who had executed the same, to secure a loan advanced of Rs. 1,50,000. The loan carried interest @ 6% per annum, and it is not in dispute that upto 1st October, 1962, interest was regularly paid. Thus the respondents had in all paid Rs. 79,875 as interest. On 7th January 1964, the appellants filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 as principal and Rs. 10,950 by way of interest due from 1st October 1962 till the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Agrawal Vs. Superintendent of Police
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1198
P.K. Tare, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by a Contractor, dealing in purchase of Sal Seed/wherein he seeks the release of the Sal Seeds, which according to him, had been illegally seized by the respondent.2. The petitioner had purchased the Sal Seeds from the forest area, which was under a lease to him. The respondent sealed his godowns on 3-10-1973. Thereafter the petitioner waited for quite good time. Subsequently, the Sal Seeds stored by the petitioner from 1-2-1974 to 9-2-1974, in all 9605 bags, were seized. Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court for a writ on 13-3-1974. It was after the admission of the present writ petition that the respondent filed an application before the Magistrate 1st Class for passing an order under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the seized property.3. The instant question had been exhaustively considered by us in Ram Kumar Agrawal v. State of M.P. Misc. Petn. No. 112 of 1974, D/-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Rameshlal Keshavlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1974
Reported in: [1974]35STC242(MP)
P.K. Tare, C.J. and S.S. Sharma, J.1. The Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, has in this reference under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Genera) Sales Tax Act, 1958, referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the limitation for initiating the proceedings under Section 19(1) expired on 31st October, 1964, or on 31st December, 1964, ignoring the amendment by M. P. Act No. 20 of 1964 ?(2) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of limitation will extend to 31st December, 1967, in view of the aforesaid amendment made by Section 8 of M. P. Act No. 20 of 1964?2. The present reference arises on the following facts : The respondent, a trader liable to pay sales tax, was being assessed for the period from 1st April, 1959, to 31st October, 1959. The order of assessment was passed on 9th July, 1962. The department furt...
Tag this Judgment!Chunnilal Motilal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC298(MP)
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Board of Revenue, on a direction given by this court dated 15th January, 1969, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 233 of 1967, has referred the following two questions for our opinion :(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material to enhance the gross turnover from Rs. 5,02,456 to Rs. 5,18,755 and whether the enhancement was legal and(2) Whether the sales of batasa, sugar-candy and chironjidana can be regarded as sales of sugar within the meaning of entry No. 41 of Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?2. This reference had come up before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by B. Dayal, C. J., and S.P. Bhargava, J., which by order dated 16th July, 1971, directed that the entire reference be placed before a Full Bench to consider whether the question decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Channulal Motilal v...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturchand Chhotmal Vs. Kapurchand Kewalchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1974
Reported in: AIR1975MP136
B.R. Dube, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raipur. in civil suit No. 4-A of 1966, allowing respondent's claim for possession of the land described in Schedule 'C' of the plaint and. for partition and separate possession of one-half share in the property as shown in Schedule 'A' of the plaint, together with mesne profits.2. Chhotmal Dassani and Kewalchand Dassani were brothers. These two brothers separated in the year 1912, and a registered partition deed was executed on 4-10-1912. Chhotmal Dassani had no issue. He, therefore, adopted the appellant Kasturchand, who was the eldest son of Kewalchand. The respondent Kapurchand is the younger son of Kewalchand. The parties are governed by the Banaras School of Hindu Law. After the partition, the branches of Kewalchand and Chhotmal became separate in all respects. Chhotmal executed a document dated 9-6-1952, styled as 'Vyavastha Patra'. He died a few days...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›