Madhya Pradesh Court February 1981 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Tahsil Co-operative and Agricultural Pro ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC149(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act', the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, iron sheets purchased by the dealer from registered dealer after payment of tax could not be subjected to tax again in view of Section 15 of the Central Act, as iron sheets were declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Act 2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : The assessee is a dealer in grains, oil-seeds, cotton, iron sheets, etc., and was assessed to tax under the Act for the period commencing from 1st July, 1965, to 30th June, 1966. It came to the notice of the assessing authority that sales of black corrugated sheets which fell under the category of 'iron and steel' were taxable at the last point but deduction was wrongly allowed in that behalf by the order of asse...
Smt. Mullo Bai and Vs. Raghubardayal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP32; 1981MPLJ577
ORDERM.D. Bhatt, J. 1. This is the objectors' revision against the executing Court's order dated 21-12-1979, whereby their objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Civil P. C. was dismissed as being untenable.2. In the course of execution of a money decree, the house in question, alleged to be belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached. After the attachment, the sale proceedings continued in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the respective Rules of Order 21 CPC. It is not in dispute that, finally the auction had taken place on 22-11-1978 and the sale was knocked down in favour of the highest bidder. It is equally not in dispute that the said sale has not yet been confirmed, and the sale has not been made absolute as yet. The judgment-debtor's widow-mother Mullobai and her two brothers filed the objection under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC on 18-12-1978, i. e. about a month after the knocking down of the sale in favour of the highest bidder. The executing Court vide the order whi...
Virendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Shanta Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981MP271
ORDERM.D. Bhat, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the trial Court's order dated 14-8-1980 passed under Order 16, C. P. C. with conditions stipulated in the matter of due service of summons on the plaintiff's witnesses.2. 14-8-1980 was the date fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The plaintiff was absent and so also his witnesses. The processes issued for the summoning of the witnesses had not returned to the Court, served or otherwise. The trial Court observed that similar situation existed on earlier hearings as well, and one of the witnesses of the plaintiff had actually refused to accept the summons. In these circumstances, the trial Court passed the impugned order, whereby it was directed that the plaintiff was being given one more chance to summon his witnesses on the condition that he should take special interest in getting his witnesses served, and, in case, the processes arc found to be returned unserved or without proper service, the plaintiff ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(MP)335; [1982]135ITR221(MP); [1982]51STC358(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under Sections 8(2) and 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act paid by the assessee is allowable expenditure in the computation of total income?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows: The assessee is a company deriving income from the manufacture and sale of vegetable ghee and de-oiled cakes. The assessment year in question is 1971-72. During this year, the assessee had to pay the amount of Rs. 1,91,660 on account of penalty imposed on the assessee under the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'Sales Tax Act'. The assessee was also required to pay Rs. 1,28,000 on account of penalty imposed on the assessee un...
Raja Ajitsingh of Jhabua Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: [1981]132ITR412(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that capital gains of Rs. 71,481 realised on the sale of a portion of land within the compound of Jhabua Kothi, which was declared as 'official residence' of the Ruler of Jhabua was not entitled to exemption from tax within the meaning of Para. 15(1)(iii) of Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : The assessee is an Ex-Ruler of Jhabua State. During the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee realised a capital gain of Rs. 71,481 on the sale of a portion of land forming part of the compound of Jhabua Kothi which was declared as official residence of the Ruler of Jhabua. Th...
Gulab Bai and ors. Vs. Abirchand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP29; 1981MPLJ674
ORDERM.D. Bhatt, J. 1. This is the revision, preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant Gendalal against the trial Court's Order dated 16-1-1979 allowing plaintiffs' application under Order 22, Rule 9, CPC for bringing the LRs. of the deceased defendant on record.2. Facts not in dispute are briefly these :The sole defendant Gendalal, during the pendency of eviction suit against him, had died on 3-5-1976. On 29-7-1976, which was the date of the hearing in the suit, defendant Gendalal's counsel pleaded no instructions nor did he apprise the Court or anyone that Gendalal had already died. 30-9-1976 was the next date for the ex parte evidence in the case and the plaintiff No. 1 Abirchand had attended the trial court for ex parte evidence. It was on 20-10-1976 that the plaintiffs filed an application in the Court for bringing the LRs. of the deceased defendant Gendalal on record. Condonation of delay was equally prayed for. Proposed LRs were noticed and they filed thei...
Krishnakumar Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP162
G.P. Singh, C. J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 747 of 1974.2. These petitions relate to the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.3. The Act as its long title shows was enacted to provide for the imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings, acquisition and disposal of surplus land and matters ancillary thereto. The Act as originally enacted was assented to by the President on 28th September 1960. The Act was, thereafter, amended eight times. The Amending Acts are Acts Nos. 35 of 1961, 38 of 1965, 25 of 1966, 12 of 1974, 13 of 1973, 20 of 1974, 2 of 1976 and 37 of 1976. The principal Act as also the Amending Acts up to Act No. 20 of 1976, have been inserted from time to time in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. In Waman Roo v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271, the Supreme Court has ruled that Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule before 24th April 1973 are protected by Article 31B and cannot be challenged....
Narbada Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981MP101; 1981MPLJ260
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 324 of 1977.2. These petitions involve the construction of Section 4 of the Madhya Pra-desh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, as it now stands.3. The Bill of the principal Act i. e. the Act as originally enacted was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette of 15th September, 1959. The principal Act received the assent of the President on 20th September, 1960 and the assent was first published in the Gazette on 1st October, 1960. The Act was enforced by a notification issued under Section 1 (3) with effect from 15th November, 1961. Section 7 of the principal Act fixed 28 standard acres as the ceiling limit of land which could be held by a person. The principal Act also made provision for declaring void transfers under Section 4 and for preventing transfers under Section 5, The first set of amendments of the principal Act were made by Acts Nos. 35 of 1961, 38 of 1965 and 25 of 1966. These amendments were give...
Balmukand Vs. the State of M.P. anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP38
ORDERM.D. Bhatt, J.1. This is the plaintiff-applicant's revision against the lower appellate Court's order directed the trial Court to decide afresh the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 4 C. P. C. after duly hearing the other side.2. The present applicant-plaintiff had filed a suit against the State Government (present non-applicant No. 1) in the trial Court for declaration of his right and title as Bhumiswami to certain agricultural land. The non-applicant No. 2 Rajmal was allowed to be joined in the suit as the defendant No. 2 on his application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. in view of his alleged right of easement in the land in question. During the pendency of the suit, the present applicant-plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for restraining the defendant No. 1 State from interfering in the plaintiff's possession till the disposal of the suit, plaintiff's possession of the land in dispute for the period from 1972 to 1976 was stated to...
Ramcharan and anr. Vs. Narsingh Das Gandhi (Dead) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP40; 1981MPLJ727
M.D. Bhatt, J.1. This is the defendants' second appeal after having lost in the two Courts below in the matter of their eviction from the non-residen-tial premises viz. the two gumtis (cablns) in question, on the grounds under Sections 12(1) (b) and 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.2. Present respondent-landlord's suit for eviction had been decreed by the trial Court on the grounds under Sections 12(1) (b) and 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. His claim for mesne profits was equally allowed, though all claim for interest and costs had been completely disallowed. The defendants' appeal filed against the trial Court's judgment, was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Morena and the trial Court's judgment and decree for eviction on the particular grounds were maintained in toto. Cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-landlord in the matter of interest and costs was equally dismissed. Being aggrieved with the lower Appellate Court's ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »