Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ683
Sathaye, J.C.1. This is an application under Article 236 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus to release the applicant from his detention under the Privative Detention Act of 1950.2. By an order dated 7.3.1950, the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal directed that the applicant Wahid Ali alias Buddha son of Ahmedali, resident of Bhopal be detained for one year from the date of the order. To applicant, however, could not be arrested immediately after this order and wag arrested only on 5.6.1950 and the Chief Commissioner, on 13.6.1950 forwarded to him the grounds of the order of detention.3. The applicant filed this petition on 21.8.1950, alleging that the grounds for his detention were mala fide, vague and indefinite; and that the petitioner was a peaceful, respectable citizen and the encroachment on his fundamental rights of personal liberty given under the Constitution of India, by the Chief Commissioner of Bhopal was wholly an warranted and against law.4. On 29.9.1950 the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1305
Kaul, C.J.1. This is an application purporting; to be made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant Dayabhai Poonambhai Patel is a resident of Barwani. Prior to its integration with Madhya Bharat Barwani was an independent State governed by its Ruler styled His Highness the Maharana of Barwani. According to the applicant by an agreement dated 30-11-1947 His Highness the Maharana granted to him for the value of a consideration, a monopoly (sole right) for transport of passengers by motor buses within the State. One of the terms of the agreement was that no other buses or taxies except chose of the applicant would be allowed to ply on hire within (the State territory. That on 29-6-1948 the State of Barwani was merged in & became a part of the union of Madhya Bharat. This was effected in pursuance of a Covenant entered into on 22-4-1948 between the Ruler of Barwani & the Rulers of a number of other States in Central India This had the sanction of the then Govt. of India. The U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)156CTR(MP)261
ORDERS. B. Sakrikar, J.The unsuccessful petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10/86 of the Court of ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant, Income Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Khandwa, filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Indore, against the petitioners and deceased partners of the firm M/s Kanhaiyalal Deepchand Jain alleging commission of offence punishable under section 276E/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1983-84 of the applicant No. 1, assessee-firm, it was found that the firm repaid the loan amount in cash i.e., otherwise that A/c Payee cheques or the draft, respectively, to Smt. Basanti Bai W/o Kanhaiyalal; Rajeshkumar Roopchand Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,200 when the balance in their account was exceeding Rs. 10,000....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP168; 2008(1)MPHT54
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. This batch of appeals was listed for rectification of default, the same being, the affidavit that has been filed in support of the applicant for condonation of delay preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in each case has been sworn to by the Oath Commissioner instead of Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952. Though the aforesaid matters were listed for rectification of the aforesaid singular default which has been pointed out by the Registry, Mr. A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.C. Paliwal, Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Mr. Ashok Lalwani, Mr. Greeshm Jain, Mr. K.N. Fakaruddin, Mr. Ashish Shroti, Mr. Ashish Trivedi, Mr. N.S. Parmar, Mr. D.K. Sharma and Mr. Vipin Sharma, Advocates addressed this Court that the default pointed out by the Registry is absolutely erroneous as such a default does not emerge if the provisions engrafted in various enactments and rules framed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh from time to time are scrutinized in proper pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1960]11STC511(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 160 all of 1958.2. In these sixteen applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the validity of imposition of sales tax under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, on 'leaves of tobacco, manufactured tobacco used for eating, smoking and for snuff and tobacco chura used for the manufacture of bidis' imported by them from outside the quondam State of Madhya Bharat and sold in that State. They pray that the imposition be declared to be illegal and ultra vires the Constitution and an appropriate writ or direction be issued to the opponents to refund the tax already collected from them during the period from 1st April, 1951, to 30th September, 1957.3. All the petitioners carry on business in Ujjain (a city located in that part of the new Madhya Pradesh which was formely Madhya Bharat) as importer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977MP68
Singh, J.1. Ramcharan, the respondent in this appeal, was prosecuted under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950, on a complaint made by the Station Officer Rehli, District Sagar. The Magistrate First Class, Rehli, by his order dated April 19, 1974 convicted the respondent and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. On an appeal preferred by the respondent, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, by his order passed on March, 8, 1975 acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the Station Officer Rehli was not empowered under Section 7(1) of the Act to make the complaint. The State preferred the present appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. At the time of admission of the appeal before a Division Bench, the learned Government Advocate produced a copy of Notification No. G. S. R. 1512 of December 24, 1960 under which the Station Officer, Rehli, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)155CTR(MP)272
ORDERD.P.S. CHAUHAN, J.:The petitioner is an assessee assessed to income-tax under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has approached this Court seeking relief for insurance of a writ in the nature of mandarnus commanding the respondents i.e., Union of India, the CIT, Madhya Pradesh-II, Jabalpur, and the ITO, Headquarters (Admn.), ITO, Jabalpur, for making refund of Rs. 58,326.01 together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. in accordance with the provisions of s. 244 of the Act to the petitioner.3. The case of the petitioner is that for the asst. yr. 1982-83, he filed his return in time on 31st July, 1982, showing his taxable income as Rs. 1,17,468 and tax payable was shown at Rs. 58,326.01. The assessment was to be completed within the statutory period of two years as provided under s. 153(1)(a)(iii) of the Act and accordingly no assessment order was passed within the aforesaid pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)154CTR(MP)1
ORDERR.S. GARG, J:By this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the action of the respondents in issuing the commission under s. 131(1)(d) of the IT Act to the Valuation Officer and to quash the notices dt. 5th March, 1998, and 25th June, 1998, issued by the Valuation Officer and to direct the AO Respondent No. 1 to accept the valuation report submitted by the petitioner while disclosing his income under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner, who is carrying on business of repairs of electrical fittings, etc., is assessed to income-tax by the respondent No. 1. For the asst. yr. 1996-97, she filed a return showing an income of Rs. 43,950. According to her, she started raising construction of the property in the financial year 1993-94 and completed it by 1995-96. According to the petitioner, she had invested an amount of Rs. 10 lacs 89 thousand in construction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(MP)287; [2008]296ITR173(MP)
ORDERAshok Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 31st March, 1999 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Crl. Appeal No. 81 of 1998 against the conviction of the applicants and the sentence imposed on him by the learned 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. .2. Applicant No. 1 Rameshwar Prasad Sunderlal was a partnership firm and applicant Nos. 2 (since dead) and 3 were the partners of the aforesaid firm. The other partners of the firm namely, Balaram and Janabai has expired during the trial. The aforesaid firm was income-tax payer. The IT returns on behalf of the firm had to be filed for the asst. yr. 1980-81 under Section 139(1) of the IT Act on 30th June, 1980, but the return was filed on 29th June, 1981. Thus, the return was filed after 11 months from the due date. According to the Department this delay was caused wilfully. Therefore, the prosecution was launched against the firm and its partners Jai Narayan, Balaram, Jana Bai and Radh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ660
ORDERTribeni Saran, Addl. J.C.1. This order disposes of two petitions made by Govind Prasad Shrivastava and Balkrishan Gupta for the issue of the writs of Habeas Corpus under Article 226, Constitution of India. The applicants were arrested and detained by means of warrants issued by the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal, under the Preventive Detention Act 1950.2. The preliminary objection raised by the Government advocate relates to the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the applications. His argument is that Article 226 is only meant to lay down the powers which the High Courts could exercise, only if they possessed those powers; in other words, if a High Court does not already possess the powers specified in Article 226 of the Constitution, the aforesaid Article does not empower it to exercise them and there is no remedy for the applicants except to go to the Supreme Court under Article 32(1) for the enforcement of fundamental right.3. The learned Government Advocate has cited Anant B...
Tag this Judgment!