Madhya Pradesh Court July 1976 Judgments
Sanghi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT495(MP)
S.S. Sharma, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the levy, assessment and recovery of the excise duty by the respondents on Coca-cola, Fanta-Orange and Fanta-Soda. In the alternative, the challenge is to the inclusion of transportation charges at the rate of Rs. 1.54 per crate in the assessable value of Coca-cola, Fanta-Orange and Fanta-Soda. A consequent prayer about the refund of the excise duty has also been made. 2. At the time of the hearing of this petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his challenge only to the inclusion of transportation charges in the assessable value of those items and abandoned other grounds of challenge We would, therefore, deal only with that question. 3. The case of the petitioner relevant for the disposal of this petition is as follows:- The petitioner, a limited Company, carries on business in manufacture, bottling and sale of aerated water having brands viz., (i) Coca-col...
Tag this Judgment!Maharani Kusumkumari and anr. Vs. Smt. Kusumkumari Jadega and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP90
Kondaiah, J.1. This appeal by the first wife and daughter of the deceased Maharaja Rameshwarsingh of Multhan preferred against the order of the District Judge, Dhar gives rise to an interesting question of law, whether an application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by a spouse for a declaration by a decree of nullity of the marriage after the death of the other spouse is maintainable.2. In order to understand the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly state the material facts which lie in short compass that gave rise to this point. Appellant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Maharaja Rameshwarsingh and the second appellant is her minor daughter. The first respondent Smt. Kusumkumari Jadega filed an application under Section 11 of the Act on November 9, 1974 for annulment of her marriage with her husband Maharaja Rameshwarsingh as he has contravened the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act. According to her, she ...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Laxman Purohit Vs. the Indore Parasper Sahakari Bank Ltd., Indor ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP217
Kondaiah, J. 1. This bunch of miscellaneous petitions, by the petitioners, gives rise to two short but interesting questions of law, (i) whether the Assistant Registrar is competent to determine a dispute between the financing bank and its members under Section 64 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and (ii) whether the appellate authority has jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Act to remand the matter before it to the file of the Deputy Registrar for disposal according to law?2. In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly refer to the material facts which are not only not in dispute but lie in a short compass that gave rise to this question.3. Petitioner Anant, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 270 of 1975, was a member of the Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Indore, the first respondent herein. By Resolution No. 63 passed by its Board, the respondent-Society expelled the petitioner from th...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotelal Babulal and anr. Vs. Premlal Girdharilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP34
Lodha, J. 1. The plaintiffs Chhotelal and Bhuresingh (brothers) have preferred this appeal from the judgment and decree by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 16th February 1970 whereby the plaintiffs' suit for partition and possession of the house in question bearing No. 1130/2, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, was dismissed. 2. The following pedigree of the parties may be helpful in understanding the facts of the case: BUDHRAM ___________________________|____________________ | | Girdharilal Babulal _______________________| | | | Premlal Chhotelal Bhuresingh (Deft. 1) (Pltff. 1) (Pltff. 2) 3. The plaintiffs' case is that Babulal and Girdharilal jointly acquired the house in question out of the sale proceeds of an ancestral house. Babulal, it is admitted, started living separately from Girdharilal sometime after the year 1932. It is further not in dispute now that plaintiff No. 1 Chhotelal left the house in question sometime in 1943-44. It is alleged that in 1950 Girdharilal sol...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›