Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-1958
Reported in : AIR1958MP282; [1959]10STC117(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J.1. This reference under Section 13(1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, has come up before me for hearing on a difference of opinion having arisen between my learned brothers Newaskart., and Samvatsar J., who first heard the reference, The facts and circumstances in which the reference has been made, have been stated in the opinion expressed by my learned brothers. It is not necessary for me to repeat all these facts & circumstances. The relevant facts, however, can be very shortly stated. Section 11 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act gives a right of appeal to an assessee against any assessment or order of refund or penalty to the prescribed authority.It also prescribed the form in which an appeal is to be preferred, the procedure for its hearing, limitation for filing an appeal, the powers of the appellate authority and inter alia says that every order passed in appeal under the Section shall, 'subject to the powers of revision conferred by Section 12 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-24-1958
Reported in : AIR1959MP151
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is from a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated 2nd December 1948. It was filed in the Madhya Bharat High Court under Section 25 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act 1949 as it stood before it was amended by Madhaya Bharat Act No. 3 of 1950.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 6th November 1947 by Gulabchand Tongya against the heirs and legal representatives of Govindram Seksaria on the Original Side of the High Court of the former Indore State for specific performance of an agreement whereby, it is said, Govindram Seksaria agreed to sell to the appellant his share in a firm the business of which was to act as managing agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd., Indore.The suit was tried by Sanghi J., who on 11th June 1948 made a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing that on payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of 5/32 of the capital deed of assigning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-1958
Reported in : AIR1958MP355
B.K. Chaturvedi, J. 1. An issue has been framed about the necessity of a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, before the filing of the present suit. It is not disputed that the Municipality had been superseded and an Administrator appointed. Probably the attention of the Court below was not drawn to Tikaram Vithoba v. Municipal Committee, Sindi, 1954 Nag LJ 683 (A) which lays down that after supersession of a Municipal Committee under Section 57 (2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, the committee is wholly out of picture and Section 48 of the Municipalities Act does not apply to a Municipal Committee which is rendered dormant by its supersession; but that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply as the property of the Committee vests in the State. This ruling was binding on the Court below. 2. The above decision of Mndholkar J. seeks to extend the principle enunciated in the Division Bench decision reported in Damodar Tukaram Mangalmoorti v. Municipal Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-20-1958
Reported in : AIR1958MP299
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Election Tribunal, Chhatarpur, dated 22-11-1957, in Election Petition No. 458 of 1957.2. The matter arises Out of the parliamentary election for the Rewa constituency in this State. The present appellant was a voter for that constituency. At the election eight candidates contested for the seat and one Shiv Dutt Upadhyaya, who is the respondent in this appeal, succeeded, having rolled 41,745 votes. The present election petition as well as the appeal have been filed by the voter Prabhucharan presumably in the interest of one Smt. Rama Mitra who polled 21,318 votes.The main contention on behalf of the appellant, (which was the same in the Tribunal below), is that by the allotment of multifarious symbols to the so-called Socialist Party there was confusion in the voting and the voters were not able to cast their votes as they would otherwise have, and that it also entailed a considerable amount of propaganda work against the other parties. Me co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-29-1958
Reported in : AIR1959MP30
V.R. Nevaskar, J.1. The appeal involves consideration of a question regarding limitation.2. Plaintiff Mohammad Hussain Bohara of Sanawad filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 6800/- on the allegations that the defendant had agreed to sell to him the corrugated iron sheets covering the entire premises of the 'Merchant Gin' at Sanawad which the latter had agreed to purchase from a third party at the rate of Annas 3 1/4 per square foot. The contract was entered into on 31-1-1949 and the plaintiff paid Rs. 5000/- towards the contract.The delivery of the sheets was agreed to be given within thirty days. A document containing, these terms was executed between the parties. The defendant, it is said, failed to give delivery as agreed before 3-3-1949 and prayed for the extension of the period for delivery. The plaintiff agreed to the extension by a fortnight. There was further extension by three days subsequent to the date fixed for delivery under the earlier extension up to 1-4-1949.But even...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-1958
Reported in : AIR1958MP286
ORDER1. This case comes before the Division Bench on a reference by Bhutt, J. The facts of the case sufficiently appear from the order of reference and need not be stated again. The reference involves consideration of two questions. They, are as follows : (i) Whether the State Government should be directed to issue another notification empowering any particular class of Judges to entertain thesepetitions? (ii) Whether, even if this is now done, the petition in question would not be barred by limitation if it is hereafter presented before a duly constituted authority? 2. Under Section 20-A (2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, an election petition is to be presented to the District Judge or Additional District Judge or to a Civil Judge especially empowered by the Provincial Government is this behalf. The first question i^ whether the special empowering is to be only of the Civil Judge or also of the District Judge and the Additional District Judge. The second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-17-1958
Reported in : AIR1959MP183
T.P. Naik, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the proprietor of the 'Bhartiya Bhandar' whose Hindi publication 'Naya Sahitya Sourabha', parts 1 to 4, hadbeen sanctioned and prescribed as one of the text books in 'Hindi' for the middle school classes in Mahakoshal in the syllabus of studies for classes V to VIII of the middle school for the academic year 1958-59 by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter called the Board).His main complaint is that the State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent No. 1) and the Director of Public Instruction (respondent No. 2) have -- vide notification, dated 1-6-1958, (Annexure E) -- changed the said syllabus of the course of studies for the year 1958-59 and onwards for the middle school classes and substituted a new syllabus in contravention of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Regulations made thereunder (hereinafter called the Regu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-25-1958
Reported in : (1960)ILLJ786MP
K.L. Pandey, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal directed against the order of Bhatt, J., dated 8 October 1957, by which the appellant's petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was dismissed.2. The facts of the case are these. The petitioner was employed as a mechanic in Rajnandgaon Rice and Oil Mills on a monthly salary of Rs. 125. He was discharged from service by the employer on 14 March 1955. He made an application under Section 16(1) of the Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (which will hereafter be referred to as the Act), to Sri L.S. Titus, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, exercising the powers of the Labour Commissioner, who, by his order, dated 13 September 1955 passed under Section 16(2) of the Act, 'directed that the petitioner be reinstated within one week of the, order.3. On 19 September 1955, the petitioner's counsel wrote to the employer asking where and when the petitioner should resume his duties. The employer's counsel Sri K. M. Joshi, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-17-1958
Reported in : AIR1959MP342
H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the lower courts dismissing the suit ad liinine on the ground that the plaintiff had not given notice to the defendant, namely, the Mandal Panchayat, under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The only question is whether such a notice was necessary.2. The suit of the plaintiff was for different reliefs. It is argued here that it was not intended to pray that the Panchayat should be restrained from levying certain rates at a mela held near a temple owned and maintained by the plaintiff. But it was intended that the defendant Panchayat should be restrained from levying rent on shopkeepers to whom the defendant was allotting plots of his land in the temple enclosure. This is not clear from the plaint and before the issues are framed it will be necessary for the plaintiff to amend his plaint. But this is not a matter directly arising in the present appeal.Under Section 21 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Vid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-26-1958
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1614
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. This petition under Article 228 of the Constitution is founded on the contention T that the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, was unconstitutional and void, as it unreasonably restricted the fundamental right of the petitioner to manufacture and sell his patent' and proprietary medicine, 'Germs Killer' without disclosing on the carton or label of the drugs Its true formula Or list of ingredients.2. The relevant facts may shortly be stated as follows: The petitioner is the manufacturer of a medicinal preparation which he manufactures, stocks, exhibits, distributes and sells under an invented proprietary name 'Germs Killer' since before the year 1928. The name 'Germs Killer1 of the said medicine has been registered under the Trade Marks Act. The medicine is manufactured and sold by the petitioner for the external treatment of skin diseases.3. It is not disputed that the said medicinal-preparation is a drug within the meaning of Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!