Madhya Pradesh Court December 1977 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.
Bal Krishna Tiwari Vs. Registrar of Awadhesh Pratap Singh, University, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP86; 1978MPLJ172
Shiv Dayal, C.J.1. The petitioner appeared in the LL.B. (Part-I) examination of the Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa (hereinafter called the 'Rewa University') held in the month of April 1976. The University has not declared his result but has withheld it on the ground that he was not eligible to appear in the examination and his admission card was cancelled and consequently his examination has been cancelled. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the University to declare his result.2. The petitioner appeared in the examination as an ex-student candidate. According to the University he was not eligible to appear as an ex-student candidate and, therefore, the admission card, which was issued to him was by mistake and consequently it was cancelled.3. The petitioner was a regular student of LL.B. (Part-I) in 1967 in the teaching department of the Saugor University. He did not succeed in the examination. In October 1975, he applied to the Registrar for permission to...
Manoharlal Awal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP152; 1978MPLJ113
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders of assessment, the orders of the Central and the State Governments holding that the petitioner is liable to pay royalty on limestone according to use the notices of demand for recovery of additional royalty and the recovery proceedings pending before the Tahsildar, Maihar. He further seeks a writ of mandamus or prohibition to restrain the respondents from recovering the amounts of additional royalty in accordance with the impugned assessment and the notices of demand by coercive process, and further to direct respondents 1 and 2 to assess the petitioner properly,2. The respondents, while resisting the petition, raised a preliminary objection at the hearing before the Division Bench. The preliminary objection is based on Section 150 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. It was urged that an alternative remedy by way of a suit being available un...
Dwarka Dhish Bhargava and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP119
C.P. Sen, J.1. The Division Bench has referred the question regarding the constitutional validity of Madhya Pradesh Veterinary (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966, to the larger Bench, as required under Article 228A of the Constitution of India.2. The 4 petitioners and the respondents 2 to 20 were all recruited as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons (Class III non-gazetted posts) in the service of Agriculture and Veterinary Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In due course, the petitioners were confirmed in their posts. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the selection of the respondents 2 to 11 as direct recruits to Class II Gazetted posts in the Veterinary Department in the year 1968-69 and also that of the respondents 12 to 20 as direct recruits in the same posts in the year 1970-71. The posts were duly advertised and selections were made through the Public Service Commission as per the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966, (hereinafter referred...
Sukhu Ram Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP97; 1978MPLJ120; [1978]41STC376(MP)
J.P. Bajpai, J.1. The question referred to this Bench for answer is as below:''Whether colour-powders fall within Entry No. 25 of Schedule II, Part II of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958?'2. The occasion for the reference arose, because of certain observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 15 of its decision in the case of N. Ganubhai v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. 1975 MPLJ 673 : (1976 Tax LR 1249), wherein it was observed that the word 'dyes' should be understood as denoting that type of materials which are more or less similar to the other goods described in the said entry.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of properly appreciating the respective contentions raised on behalf of the assessee and the department are that the petitioner is a kirana shop-keeper (grocer). He deals in the sale and purchase of colour-powders also. It was not disputed that the various powdered colours sold by the petitioner were used ordinarily for dyeing cloth or other art...
Harbhajansingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP150
Shiv Dayal, C.J.1. A Division Bench has framed the following question and referred it to us for answer :--'Whether or not the Judicial Authority under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act acts as a persona designate while hearing appeals under Section 6A of the Act and. secondly, whether a revision would lie against the order of the Judicial Authority before the High Court?'2. It appears that the Collector proceeded against the petitioner and 11 others under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). He served a show cause notice under Section 6B of the Act and proposed to confiscate the wheat and trucks. After enquiry, the Collector found the applicants to have contravened the provisions of the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1973, and confiscated the wheat as well as the trucks. The petitioner and others preferred an appeal to the Judicial Authority, i.e. the District and Sessions Judge, Khandwa, who dismiss...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agrawal Brothers
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: [1980]123ITR232(MP)
Oza, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, at the instance of the department.2. The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee returned income of Rs. 12,811 after charging to the accounts loss, claimed to be hedging loss, amounting to Rs. 93,554. The ITO observed that the loss arose from forward contracts entered into by the assessee which were settled otherwise than by actual delivery of transfer of goods. The losses were claimed by way of difference in the accounts dealt with by the assessee. Before the ITO, it was, however, claimed that to the extent of Rs. 38,230, the difference in price debited to the difference account, pertained to the ready business and the balance of Rs. 56,248 was covered by prov. (a) to Section 43(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which corresponds to prov. (a) to Expln. 2 to Section 24(1) of the Indian I.T. Act of 1922. The ITO held that whole of the loss of Rs. 98,091 arose from speculative transactions an...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P., Nagpur and Bhandara Vs. Parmanan ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP80; [1979]119ITR219(MP); 1978MPLJ355
J.S. Verma, J.1. This reference made under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is to answer the following question:--'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rightly held that no special surcharge could be levied on the assessee's share of tax paid by the registered firm?'In view of the, decision of a Division Bench' (Naik and Tare, JJ.) in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pra-desh v. Kalekhan Jumman Khan by legal representative Mohammad Hanif, M.C.C. No. 80 of 1969 decided on 5-11-1970 (Madh Pra), the question had to be answered in the negative when it came up for hearing before a Division Bench (Tare, C. J. and Sharma, J.). However, learned counsel for the assesses contended that the earlier Division Bench decision required reconsideration. For this reason, the Division Bench referred this matter to a Full Bench and this is how it has come before us. It is stated at the bar that with reference to the relevant period the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›