Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP163
Tare, C.J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 159 of 1971 (Rev. Stainislaus v. The State of M. P.). 2. On a report made by the Circle Inspector, Balodabazar, dated 9-3-1970, and on a complaint made by him on 23-5-1970, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Balodabazar, sanctioned prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 (2) and Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 (No. 27 of 1968), by Order, dated 23-10-1970, in exercise of the powers delegated to him by Section 7 of the said Act. Accordingly, an offence was registered and Criminal Case No. 1195 of 1970 was initiated in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Balodabazar. 3. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection as to the tenability of the prosecution contending that the Act was ultra vires the powers of the State legislature, as it did not fall within the scope of Entry No. I to List II and Entry No. 1 to List III of the Seventh Sched...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP36
C.P. Sen, J. 1. The question referred for consideration of the Full Bench is:-- 'Whether a revision lies from an order passed by the District Judge under Section 139 (5) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961.'This order shall also dispose of the connected Civil Revisions Nos. 779, 781 and 783 of 1972. 2. Sub-sections 139 (11 to (5) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, are as under:-- 139. (1) If any dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment or as to the basis or principle of assessment or as to the amount of tax assessed an appeal shall lie from the decision of the Council to the Civil Judge, Class I having jurisdiction over the Municipal area and if there be no Civil Judge, Class I at the headquarter of the Municipality to the Civil Judge, Class II having jurisdiction at such headquarter and if there be no Civil Judge, Class II at such headquarter to the Civil Judge, Class II having jurisdiction, and in case of more than one such Civil Judges at the he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977MP116; 1977MPLJ227
Raina, J. 1. The petitioners, who are advocates practising in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging, inter alia the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Chief Justice'), dated 5-2-1976.2. This petition raises an important question of jurisdiction of the High Court at its principal seat vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the Benches at Indore and Gwalior. The present State of Madhya Pradesh was constituted under Section 9 of the States Reorganization Act, 195,6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from the appointed day, that is, 1-11-1956, comprising of-(a) The territories of the former State of Madhya Pradesh, except the districts of Nagpur, Chanda, Bhandara, Akola Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha and Buldana; (b) the territories of the former State of Madhya Bharat, except Sunel tappa of Bhanpura tahsil of Mandsaur district;...
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 : 1995(0)MPLJ876
ORDERM.V. Tamaskar, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Jila Bidi Rastriya Congress Union, Damoh and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, M. P. No. 2811 of 1991.2-3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and Branch at Damoh (M.P.). It is engaged in manufacture of Bidis and has a factory' at Hindoria in Damoh district. Similarly, petitioner No. 2, a partnership firm, is also a manufacturer of Bidi with head office at Ahmedabad and Branch at Damoh and factory at Hindoria.4. The respondent No. 2 is Notified Area Committee constituted under Section 344 of the M.P. Municipalities Act. The State of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification imposing Terminal Tax under the authority conferred under Section 341(1) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, dated 2nd May, 1991, which is reproduced below :'Bhopal, the 2nd May, 1991.No. P.6-51-XV III-II-90. - In exercise of the powers conferred by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996MP116
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. In some of these writ petitions, provisions of Entry Tax Act, 1976 (for short the Act) are challenged as unconstitutional. In all the writ petitions, except M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, the notification dated 29-6-1990 of the State Government issued under Section 4-A (2) of the Act specifying local areas in goods for imposition of entry tax at the rate of 10% for limestone and levy and collection of such entry tax are challenged. In M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, levy of entry tax at similar rate on entry of limestone within a local area are challenged. In M. P. No. 1521 of 1991, similar levy of entry-tax into a local area is challenged- In some of the writ petitions, subsequent notification dated 2-2-1994 is challenged. 2. We have heard various counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged the following points for consideration : (i) The impugned notifications relate to lime (stone) and not l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1996)130CTR(MP)431
ORDERBY THE COURT :These are applications filed by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for stating the case and to make reference of the following common questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that ginning and pressing charges received from the members is allowable as an exemption though it was with the aid of power ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee though not admissible within the provisions of s. 80P(2)(v) but is admissible under s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting interest under s. 217 (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting interest under s. 217 (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in directing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1995)130CTR(MP)431; [1995]216ITR632(MP)
Shri D. D. Vyas, standing counsel for the Revenue heard.These are applications filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for stating the case and to make a reference of the following common questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that ginning and pressing charges received from the members is allowable as an exemption though it was with the aid of power ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee though not admissible within the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(v), but is admissible under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting interest under section 217 ?(v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and to allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997ACJ1258
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This appeal is directed against award dated 30.9.1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad, in Claim Case No. 2 of 1982. The Claims Tribunal has given an award of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation, against the appellant respondent Nos. 6 and 8. The respondent No. 8, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed the Appeal No. 489 of 1989 against the same award. The order in this appeal shall govern the disposal of that appeal too.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Keshav Prasad Shukla died in an accident leaving behind his wife and four minor daughters. They filed a claim under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (henceforth 'the Act'). It was claimed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the deceased Keshav Prasad was killed in an accident with truck No. CPB 6317 on 1.8.1987. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)MPLJ133
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This second appeal has come up for hearing before us on a reference being made by C. K. Prasad, J. who was of the opinion that the substantial question of law required to be determined is a question of importance which reads thus:'Whether the respondents were entitled to claim exemption from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the basis of notification, issued on 7-9-1989, by the State Government, exempting the appellant from operation of the section subject to the conditions mentioned therein?'2. Facts which are essential for determination of the question are thus : The respondent/plaintiff is a religious and charitable trust registered under M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short 'the MPPT Act') which owns a Dharamshala, many houses and other properties. The houses are let out to the various tenants of the trust. The rental income derived from the houses and other buildings is exclusively used and applied for religious and charitable purpo...
Tag this Judgment!