Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP207; 1969MPLJ104; [1969]24STC155(MP)
Singh, J.1. This is a case stated by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue) under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 referring for our answer the following question of law:--'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Sales Tax acted illegally in exercising his powers of revision under Section 39 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 in respect of the assessment order dated 28-11-1961 which was passed in respect of the returns submitted on 30-1-1958 and 17-6-1958 and on the basis of the notice in form XI issued on 29-8-1961?'2. The case relates to the assessment of the dealer M/s. Amarnath Ajit Kumar of Bhind for Central Sales Tax for the period 1st July, 1957 to 31st March, 1958. The dealer filed returns for the second and the third quarters on 30th January, 1958 and for the fourth quarter on 17th June, 1958. These returns were filed under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP166; 2000(2)MPLJ1
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, Associated Cement Companies Ltd., has prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of demand dated 19-10-95, Annexure-P-6 and further to declare that respondent No.2,Minicipal Council, Kymore is not entitled to impose any export tax on petitioner's finished goods which are despatched by rail to any destination and further to restrain them from levying such tax,2. The facts as have been depicted in the petition are that the petitioner is a Limited Company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Bombay. It is enganged in the business of manufacturing cement. It has its factory at Kymore in Tahsil Vijayraghavgarh in the district of Jabalpur. The village Kymore, as pleaded, owes its existence because of the petitioner and Eternit Everest Limited which has set up its cement plant adjacen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2002)IILLJ353MP; 2002(1)MPLJ385
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. All these petitions challenge orders identical to the order dated November 27, 1999 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Labour Court and order Annexure P/7 dated February 23, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court affirming the said order Annexure P/5 in Civil Appeal No. 260/99/MPIR in the case of the employee Budha Rao Magarde in W.P. No. 3510/2000 and were, therefore, analogously heard and are being decided by this common order on the basis of the facts of W.P. No. 3510/2000 / Engineer-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. and Ors. v. Budha Rao Magarde and Ors.. The employee in each of the above cases had approached the Labour Court under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act for short) for seeking classification on the post on which he had been working in the Kolar Project of the petitioner Public Health Engineering Department. It is not disputed that the employees were inducted on daily wages from 1989 onwards till 1993.2. The case of the employees befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2001]122STC12(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1.The decision rendered in this writ shall govern the disposal of other writ being M.P. No. 1336 of 1992 as in both these writs, common question of law is involved.2. By filing this writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated August 3, 1991, passed by District Level Committee (annexure G/1) and an appellate order dated June 4, 1992 (annexure I), which affirms the order dated August 3, 1991, passed by the District Level Committee. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the writ, few facts which lie in a narrow compass need mention.3. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of sale of rechargeable torches. For this purpose it has set up a new small-scale industrial unit at Sanawad in District Khargone. Necessary provisional registration certificates declaring it to be a S.S. unit have been issued to the petitioner, similarly provisional certificate of registration under State Sales Tax Act a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)MPHT300; 2006(1)MPLJ231
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. Does the Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a composite plea for eviction made by landlord covered by Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 Did the First Civil Judge Class II, Jaora commit an illegality in passing the Order impugned dated 11-8-2004 in Civil Suit No. 23-A of 2002 These two questions are involved for determination in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner herein is defendant in an eviction suit filed by respondent - a widow landlady. It is not disputed that she is seeking petitioner's eviction from suit accommodation on the grounds covered by Section 12 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short). In written statement, petitioner opposed the claim in suit. Based on pleadings, learned Trial Court settled number of issues for trial, including issue No. 6 relating to jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain claim for evic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)MPHT188
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. Defendant aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has filed present appeal. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff/ respondent bona fidely needed the suit accommodation for business of his major son Kundanlal.2. This appeal was admitted on 2-8-2000 on following substantial questions of law :--'(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that it did not matter to the case of the respondent if he did not in the witness box say in so many words that he required the suit shop bona fide for opening a shop of his son Kundanlal ? (ii) Whether the Court below failed to see that it was the requirement of the respondent Hajarilal and not that of his son which gave him right to evict the appellant and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to say so in the witness box, failing which, it can be presumed that there is no bona fide requirement ? (iii) Whether the evidence led by the appellant in respect of alternative accomm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(2004)ACC190; 2004ACJ352; 2004(2)MPHT325; 2004(2)MPLJ376
1. The following question is referred to Larger Bench for adjudication :--'Whether the appeal shall fail for non-service of notice or after dispensing with notice upon the respondents who were ex parte before the Court of first instance or they have not submitted the address for service of notice ?'2. It was contended that Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable, but Rule 242 (3) of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 clearly provides that provisions of Order XLI41 of First Schedule of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall mutatis mutandis apply to appeals preferred to the High Court under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.3. To examine the controversy it will be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Order XLI Rule 14 (4) of Code of Civil Procedure.'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sub-rule (1), it shall not be necessary to serve notice of any proceeding incidental to an appeal on any respondent other than a person impleaded for the first time in the Appellate Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(2)MPHT341
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Trade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ693
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 from issuing prospective licence in his favour for lime stone in the area of 14.733 hectares of land comprising survey No. 39/1 in village Morka Tahsil Jawad Dist. Mandsaur. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from issuing mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4. Further prayer has also been made for quashing of prospective licence granted in favour of respondent No. 4. Yet another prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from entering into mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4.2. It is relevant here to state that this writ petition was filed on 30-8-1995 and after filing of the said writ petition, on 29-11-1995 mining lease has been granted to respondent No. 4.3. Shorn off the unnece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP214
S.K. Jha, C.J. 1. We have assembled today for the purpose of deciding only one incidental matter on which learned counsel for the parties insist. We give our ruling at the outset before we proceed further to hear the counsel for the parties on merits of the writ petition. That limited question as to the legality or propriety of the Governor either in his official capacity or by name described as the Governor, respondent No. 6 in the writ petition was warranted in law or was. precluded by virtue of the legal immunity attached to the Governor on account of his acts done or purported to be done in his official capacity under the provisions of Article 361 of the Constitution of India. While on the one hand, Shri N. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner insists that Shri Kunwar Mehmood Ali, Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh was a necessary party and no immunity could be enjoyed by him qua a Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution, It was not only proper but legal for him ...
Tag this Judgment!