Madhya Pradesh Court November 1976 Judgments
Abdul Taiyab Abbas Bhai Malik and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP176
Oza, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners for a certificate under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in so far as the Notification by the President of India constituting permanent Benches under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act is concerned, it involves a question about the interpretation of Articles 2, 3, 4 and Entry 78, List I, of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is also contended that as regards the decision about the vires of Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, although the decision is unanimous, but still it involves a substantial question of law, and the petitioners are entitled to a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. As regards the question of locus standi of the petitioners and thequestion about the jurisdiction of the Benches vis-a-vis the principal seat, it was contended that there being difference of opinion in the judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!Shakoor Khan and ors. Vs. Ram Mohan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP187; 1977MPLJ795
C.M. Lodha, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondents that the whole appeal has abated on account of the failure on the part of the appellants to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased Ibrahim Khan (appellant No. 3) who died in May 1973. It is, therefore, necessary to first dispose of the preliminary objection.2. The facts of the case are, that one Bakshilal filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits against Shakoor Khan, Akbar Khan, Ibrahim Khan and Hadi Khan on 17-9-1954. That suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 215 of 1954 and it resulted in a decree in favour of Bakshi Lal by the first appellate Court, namely, Additional District Judge, Vidisha on 18-1-58. It is, however, important to note that only a decree for permanent injunction was passed as it was held that the plaintiff would be deemed to be in possession. The matter went in appeal before the High Court, but the decree passed by the Additiona...
Tag this Judgment!Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. C.H. Pa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas478(MP)
Kondaiah, J.1. This is a reference by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereafter referred to as ' the Act '), with its recommendation to this court that Shri C. H. Padliya, a chartered accountant of Indore (hereinafter referred to as ' the respondent '), be reprimanded on the ground that the respondent has allowed his articled clerk Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, to engage himself in other employment during the period of his articles commencing from September 1, 1969, to August 31, 1971, without taking prior permission of the Council under regln. 36 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Regulations').2. Facts that give rite to this reference which lie in a short compass may briefly be stated. The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India received information that the respondent, Shri C. H. Padliya, had allowed his articled clerk, Vijay Kumar Gup...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Rai Vs. Superintendent (Tech. I) Central Excise I.D.O. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ972; 1977MPLJ153
J.S. Verma, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a suitable writ to quash the adjudication proceedings and de novo enquiry commenced by a fresh notice dated 13-12-1972 (Annexure-E) issued under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act.)2. On 27-2-1969, when the petitioner detrained at the Jabalpur railway-station from the Janata Express coming from Bombay, he was searched by officers of the Central Excise Department who recovered 23 wrist watches of foreign make from his possession. This gave rise to adjudication proceedings against the petitioner commenced by a show cause notice dated 23-5-1969 (Annexure-A) issued by the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jabalpur (respondent No. 2). That proceeding ended by the order dated 30-6-1969 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby all the watches were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act on the ground that no duty had been paid thereon and a penalty of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Amritlal Vs. Keshriprasad Bilaiya and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1978MP76
G.P. Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 Amritlal against a declaratory decree that the plaintiff-respondent and the members of his family are the owners and Bhumiswami of a tank, khasra No. 1357, area 1.19 acres, of village Murwara. The declaration in favour of the plaintiff-respondent has been granted on the 'basis that the tank belonged to his ancestors and, in the alternative, on the basis of title acquired by adverse possession. The findings of the trial Court on both these points have been assailed by the defendant appellant.2. We will first take up the point of Initial title. The plaintiff's case is that the tank was originally known as 'Tri-sool Babaki Talaiya' and that along with some other land it was granted to his great grandfather Param Bilaiya and grand-uncle Gunthe Bilaiya by the then Malguzar Thakur Ramdutt in the year 1875. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that in course of time this tank came to be known as 'Bilaiya ki Talaiya', suggesting the owner...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Cables Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1976
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT495(MP)
G.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner, Universal Cables Ltd , is a company which carries on the business of manufacturing various limits of wires and cables in its factory at Satna. The petitioner also owns a Properzi Mill in which it converts aluminium ingots into aluminium redraw rods technically known as properzi rods. By a letter dated, 11th May, 1970 the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jabalpur, granted to the petitioner permission to avail of the procedure of Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, made under the Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944. Between 24th September, 1970 to 3rd November, 1970 the petitioner received 12 consignments of duty paid aluminium ingots manufactured by the Hindustan Aluminium Co. Ltd. (Hindalco) for conversion into properzi rods. These consignments were sent to the petitioner by Messrs Metal Rolling Works Private Ltd., Bombay, for and on behalf of Messrs Lallu Bhai Amichand Private Ltd., Bombay. The Proper Officer, Central Excise, permitted the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›