Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramswarup
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1977
Reported in: 1977MPLJ451; [1977]40STC613(MP)
C.P. Sen, J.1. By this judgment the connected Criminal Appeals Nos. 559, 560 and 561 of 1970 are also disposed of as all these appeals arise out of a common judgment. The State has preferred these appeals against the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 46(1 )(c) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, for having not paid without reasonable cause the taxes assessed in different years.2. These appeals arise out of Criminal Cases Nos. 83/67 (97/70), 84/67 (96/70), 85/67 (95/70) and 86/67 (94/70) instituted as per orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a registered dealer under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The four cases are for not paying taxes as per four assessment orders for different periods ranging from 1st November, 1959, to 8th November, 1961. In Case No. 83/67 as per assessment order dated 24th November, 1964, the respondent was assessed to tax ...
S.S. Harishchandra JaIn and ors. Vs. Dr. CaptaIn Indersingh Bedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1977MP199
Sharma, J.1. The Division Bench hearing this appeal felt that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ratan-chand Firm v. Rajendra Kumar, 1969 MPLJ 672 : (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 1 (FB)) required further consideration. The question formulated for opinion is as follows:--'In appeal by the landlord against the dismissal of his suit for eviction under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act, is the landlord entitled to succeed if the tenant commits any default in the payment or deposit of current rent during the pendency of the appeal, even though the suit was rightly dismissed, as the tenant had fully complied with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act upto the date of dismissal of the suit?'2. The plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages, notice charges and ejectment from the suit premises against the respondent-defendant. This suit admittedly was on the ground provided in Section 12 (1) fa) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, ...
Smt. Shazadi Begum Vs. Vinod Kumar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP20; 1977MPLJ272
Lodha, J. 1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants against whom the suit has been dismissed by the trial court. There are two prayers contained in the appeal viz. (1) that the appellant should have been awarded costs of the suit by the lower court and (2) that the adverse finding given by the lower Court against the defendant-appellant may be quashed. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. H. G. Mishra on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that the appeal is not maintainable. The objection is two-fold. It is urged in the- first instance, that appeal lies from the decree but not against an adverse finding. Then it is argued that the appellant is not entitled to raise the objection regarding costs inasmuch as she has not paid court-fee on the amount of costs claimed by her. 3. We might first take up the second branch of the preliminary objection regarding deficiency of court-fee. Admittedly no court-fee has been paid on the amount of costs claimed by the appellant i...
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, Bhopal and ors. Vs. Karodi Shah Kohli
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP197; 1978MPLJ288
M.L. Malik, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the District Judge, Jabalpur, dated the 19th July, 1976, refusing to stay the legal proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. The plaintiff, a building contractor, sued the defendants for price of the work done. He complained that the authorities had wrongfully withheld his security deposit and had wrongfully imposed penalty for the delay in execution of the work, for which, in fact, the Housing Board was responsible, and for the below-standard quality work. The plaintiff also said that the imposition of penalty was unauthorized because it was imposed by persons who were incompetent to impose it.3. The defendants referred to Clause 29 of the contract and prayed that the legal proceedings be stayed and the dispute be referred to arbitration. The learned District Judge has rejected the application on two counts : (i) That Clause 29 of the Contract was not an arbitration agreement and (ii) The H...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›