Madhya Pradesh Court April 1980 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.
Ganga Steel Rerolling Mills Raipur and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1980
Reported in: 1986(23)ELT84(MP)
ORDERG.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of M.P. No. 852 of 1974 and M.P. No. 145 of 1977.2. Petitioner No. 1 in all these petitions is Ganga Steel Rerolling Mills a regd. partnership consisting of petitioners 2 to 6 as its partners. The petitioners carry on the business of manufacturing iron and steel products by rerolling process. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the various orders and demand notices issued by the excise authorities.3. In M.P. No. 851 of 1974 we are concerned with two periods. The first period is from 1st June, 1968 to 30th June, 1970 and the second period is from 1st July, 1970 to 17th May, 1971. A notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules was issued on 4th June, 1971 in respect of the first period making additional demands of tax. This notice is Annexure 1. The notice was served on the petitioner on 8th June, 1970.4. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect...
Anjani Prasad and ors. Vs. IshwardIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1982MP10
ORDERB.C. Varma, J. 1. One Harinandan is said to have mortgaged certain property in favour of one Vishwanath in the year 1907. Twenty one persons claiming to be heirs of the mortgagor Harinandan filed a suit (giving rise to these proceedings) for redemption of the mortgage, Some of the defendants are sued as heirs of the mortgagee Vishwanath, whale others are transferees from them. The defendants denied the mortgage and claimed right and title in the suit property independent of Vishwanath. Vasudeo, one of the original plaintiffs, died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives applied for substitution beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The defendants objected to the substitution but their objection was turned down. However, by order dated 18-6-t969, the trial Court directed that certain plaintiffs, who are non-applicants Nos. 4 to 14 in this revision, have been unnecessarily joined as plaintiffs. Since they claimed no interest in the suit property, their names we...
Raysinet Kemical Company Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: [1986]62STC314(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing chemicals, viz., refined naphthalene balls, solvent naphtha, naphthalene powder, synthetic resins, etc. The raw materials utilised by the petitioner for manufacturing the above chemicals are coal-tar, other coal-tar by-products, rosin, dephenolised oil, sulphuric acid, caustic soda, etc. The periods with which we are concerned in this petition are 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, and 1st April, 1972, to 31st March, 1973. The petitioner purchased the raw materials mentioned above within the State against declarations in form XII-A at a concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the State Act. The petitioner also purchased raw materials from outside the State against declarations in C form under the Central Act. By order dated 29th June, 1975, a penalty of Rs. 7,150 was imposed on the petitioner under Section 8(2) of the Sta...
Bhagirath Prasad Bilgaiya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR916(MP)
K.K. Dube, J. 1. The I.T. Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the surplus of the sale proceeds earned by the assessee after the disposal of the pieces of land piecemeal was liable to payment of income-tax ' 2. The assessee-applicant was a property broker for Damle family of Deori. Damle family had some lands in the town of Bina. The assessee purchased land belonging to Damle family for a sum of Rs. 17,200. He sold portions of the property to nearly 300 persons at different rates spread over a period of 10 years. The sale deeds are from October 23, 1953, to about the assessment year 1966-67. 3. This reference arises out of assessment orders for the years 1956-57 to 1966-67 excluding the assessment year 1960-61. The ITO treated the surplus from the sales of lands as taxable, as, in his opinion, the whole transaction was a venture in t...
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal Vs. State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1981MP178
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the notification dated 29th April, 1978 issued by the District Magistrate, Surguja, under Rule 239 121 (i) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974, prescribing the fees to be paid in respect of motor vehicles halting in the bus-stand at Manendragarh.2. Section 68 (1) which occurs in Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 authorises the State Government to make rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of the said chapter. Without prejudice to the generality of this power, Section 68 (2) authorises the State Government to make rules on certain enumerated matters. Clauses (r) and (s) of Section 68 (2) read as follows:'(r) prohibiting the picking up or set-ting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages at specified places or in specified areas or at places other thanduty notified stands or halting places and requiring the driver of a stage carriage ...
Kailash Gir Vs. V.K. Khare, Food Inspector and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1555
ORDERC.P. Singh, J.1. By this petition, Kailash Gir seeks to have the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, sitting at Shujalpur in Criminal Appeal No, 54 of 1978, confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Shujalpur in Criminal Case No. 433 of of 1976, convicting the petitioner for preventing the Food Inspector respondent No, 1, Mr. V. K. Khare, from taking a sample of milk, the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months with Rs. 1,000/- fine and in the alterative further rigorous imprisonment for three months, revised.2. On 7-8-1976 at about 7 a. m. near village Bhilkhedi, while the Food Inspector V. K. Khare (P. W. 1) apprehended the petitioner, who was carrying about four kilograms of milk contained in a canister on his cycle, and asked him to produce his licence authorising him to deal in milk and to sell him sample o...
Dr Ravishanker Tapa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1980
Reported in: (1983)21CTR(MP)14; [1983]139ITR862(MP)
B. C. VERMA J. - This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 652 of 1974.These are applications under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee is employed in Government service as an Assistant Surgeon. At the relevant time, he was also a partner in a firm styled as M/s. Motilal Dhannial Tapa, Mandal. In the return of his income filed under s. 139 of the Act, he included the share income of the partnership firm. The assessment was completed. Subsequently, the ITO issued a notice under s. 148 of the Act to the applicant alleging that the income from his procession as a medical practitioner was thus underassessed. The applicant filed his return showing his income from medical practice. In this subsequent return filed by him in response to the notice under s. 148, he did not include the share income from the partnership firm explaining that he was a partner of the firm as a member of the Hindu joint family and ...
Laxmandas Ramesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: 1980MPLJ607
ORDERG.P. Singh, C.J.1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the period from 25th October, 1965, to 12th November, 1966, the petitioner was assessed to Central sales tax at Rs. 46,644 by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 29th July, 1969. In penalty proceedings for the same period, the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 15th September, 1969, imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000 on the petitioner under Section 43 of the State Act for concealment of the turnover under the Central Act. The petitioner filed a revision against the order imposing penalty which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 28th February, 1975. Similarly, for the period from 3rd November, 1967, to 21st October, 1968, a penalty of Rs, 9,200 was imposed on the petitioner under Section 43 of the State Act for concealment of the turnover under the Central Act by order of the Assis...
Smt. Usha JaIn and ors. Vs. Manmohan Bajaj and ors. Overruled
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1980MP146; 1980MPLJ623
J.S. Verma, J. 1. This reference requires consideration of the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench in Bhagwat Narayan v. Kasturi 1973 MPLJ 899: (AIR 1974 Madh Pra 26), as a result of which the executing Court is bound to stay its hands the moment a third party files an objection to the execution and this stay continues till an unwilling decree-holder/auction-purchaser is forced to apply for investigation into the right or title claimed by the third party and negative the claim therein. The success of the decree-holder/auction/purchaser even thereafter is subject to another such objector coming forward with a fresh claim requiring another investigation. Even though Bhagwat Narayan's case requires such an investigation to be summary, after the recent amendments in Order 21, by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, the investigation is full as no separate suit lies later. This added difficulty in execution of a decree for possession has led to the present reference requiring reconside...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›