Madhya Pradesh Court January 1976 Judgments
Santsingh Vs. Madandas Panika and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1976MP144
Shiv Dayal, C.J.1. The two questions raised for our determination are :--(1) What is the distinction between a 'bond' and a 'promissory note'; and (2) Whether for tihe purposes of the Stamp Act, in the definition of promissory note, the explanation to Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be engrafted in Section 4 of that Act 2. As regards the second question, certain observations were made by a Division Bench of this Court in Kodorilal v. Sukhlal, AIR 1968 Madh Pra 4 although Shri Pandey contended that those observations are obiter, the question being of frequent occurrence, it has been referred to this Bench.3. Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act defines a bond thus :---' 'bond' includes- (a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person ob...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.E. Works Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC310(MP)
ORDERShiv Dayal, C.J. and S.S. Sharma, J.1.This is a reference under Section 44 of the M.P. Genera! Sales Tax Act. The Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, has referred the following two questions for answer:(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the Tribunal's finding that the tractors sold by the assessee were designed and manufactured for agricultural purposes, but were used by the purchaser for non-agricultural purposes also, though only in a small fraction of cases of the total sales, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the tractors sold by the assessee were not entitled to be treated as agricultural machinery and, thus, excluded from entry 44 of Part II of Schedule II to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?(2) Whether the period of limitation for revision proceedings under Section 39(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, runs against the assessee up to the date of issue of the notice by the Commissioner or up to the date whe...
Tag this Judgment!Daryao Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Halkibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1976MP194
A.P. Sen, J.1. This judgment will also govern the disposal of First Appeal No. 121 of 1971 (Daryao Singh v. Smt. Halkibai and others.These appeals brought from a common judgment of Shri R. L. Sanghani, IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, dated 2nd September 1971, raise a common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: The field Khasra No, 77/6/2, area 29.54 acres, situate in village Kondari, belonged to Major Wall Mohammad, By an agreement dated 14-6-1954, Ex. P-19, he agreed to sell the field to Barelal for Rs. 3692.50 p. pursuant to the agreement, he received Rs. 1,000 by way of earnest money. On 2-8-1954 Barelal paid him Rs. 700, vide receipt, Ex. P-20. Barelal paid Rs. 1,848 in all but could not arrange for the balance and evidently abandoned the contract in favour of Ganesh Singh, his brother-in-law, i.e., wife's brother. The balance consideration of Rs. 1844.50 was, accordingly, paid by Ganesh Singh, Wali M...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hari Mohan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ930
S.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is an appeal by the State Government against an order of acquittal.2. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') are employees of the Nepa Mills, which is a Government undertaking, and are as such public servants. The accused Harimohan, aged 38 years, is the Stores Officer, the accused Majiri Karunakaran, aged 40 years, is the Stores-keeper, while the accused Suresh Cihand Negar aged 33 years is the Assistant Stores-keeper of the said mills, On 24-1-1969 on a physical verification of the stock of mercury flasks, six such flasks valued at Rs. 35,000 were found short. So far the facts were not disputed before us.3. The case for the prosecution was that as the said flasks were in charge of the accused at the material time and they had offered no plausible explanation for the shortage, they were guilty of criminal breach of trust. They were, therefore, prosecuted and tried on a dharg under Section 409 read with Section 34 ol the Indian Penal Code. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Shobhalal JaIn Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1976
Reported in: [1978]41STC387(MP)
S.S. Sharma, J.1. This Judgment shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Case Nos. 148 to 154 of 1972 in each of which the parties are the same. The Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, has under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, referred the following questions for the decision of this court:(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, an implied sale of packing material taxable to State and Central sales taxes could be presumed and(2) Whether as a result of the amendment given retrospective effect: vide Sections 9 and 10 of the M. P. General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971 (No. 13 of 1971), hessian cloth can be treated as outside entry No. 6 of Schedule I and, therefore, held liable to State and Central sales taxes for the period prior to 6th May, 1971 (the said Amendment and Validation Act was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 6th May, 1971)?2. The periods of assessment covered in all these cases is Diwali 19...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Textile Stores
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-1976
Reported in: [1978]41STC484(MP)
S.S. Sharma, J.1. The Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, has sent a statement of the case and referred the following question to this court for its decision :Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that regarding the date of registration, which was not mentioned in the C forms originally produced, evidence should have been accepted in the reassessment proceedings ?2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows :The assessment of the non-applicant for the assessment year Diwali 1960-61 was reopened under Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as some of the C forms, which had been filed by the assessee in his original assessment case, did not contain the date of registration. The C forms, which did not contain the date of registration, were Nos. 197014, 366140, 393767, 377143, 198700, 80897, 198601 and 397755. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›