Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-16-1979
Reported in : AIR1980MP4; 1979MPLJ817
Faizanuddin, J.1. This is a reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act No. 2 of 1899) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) having been made by a learned Member of the M. P. Board of Revenue, Gwalior, as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in consequence of a Revenue Revision No. 132-11/77 against an order dated 28-1-1977 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps, Burhanpur, in Revenue Case No. 5-B-103/73-74. The short question as contained in paragraph 6 of the order of reference of the learned Member, Board of Revenue and referred to this Bench for its opinion is as follows; --'Whether in respect of instruments, which were registered prior to the coming into force of the amendments in 1975, the Sub-Registrar is empowered to make a reference to the Collector of Stamps in regard to under-valuation, once such instrument has been registered.'2. The factual aspects of this case, which emerge out, giving rise to this reference, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-02-1979
Reported in : AIR1980MP16; 1980MPLJ37
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. The appellant obtained a money decree against the respondent on 30th September which the respondent filed an objection claiming protection under the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin Sthagun Adhiniyam, 1975. This objection was filed on 25th November 1976. The objection was upheld by the executing Court by order dated 8th April 1977 and the execution application was dismissed. The appellant filed an appeal against this order before the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, who by order dated 21st January 1978, dismissed it on the ground that it was not maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act 104 of 1976. The appellant then filed this second appeal and relied upon a single Bench decision in Ratanlal v. Hanuman Singh S. A. No. 54 of 1978, D/- 6-4-1978 in support of the maintainability of his appeal against the order dismissing his application for execution. The appeal first came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, who was incl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-24-1979
Reported in : AIR1980MP95
J.S. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit has been decreed to the extent of Rupees 33,955.50 Paise, with interest, only against the defendants Nos. 3 to 6 and it has been dismissed in its entirety against defendants 1, 2, 7 and 8. The plaintiff in this appeal prays for passing the decree against defendants 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2) also but no such prayer has been made against defendants 7 and 8 who have not even been impleaded as parties. Thus the only question in this appeal is whether the suit can be decreed also against defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The plaintiff Radheshyam Agarwal is a businessman carrying on business in oil and other commodities at Jabalpur, Defendants 1 and 2 are the Central Railway and Southern Railway administrations. The defendant No. 3 is a partnership firm carrying on business in coconut oil at Alwaye in the State of Kerala, Defendants 4 to 6 are the partners of this firm and they are brothers. Defendants 7 and 8 are two ban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-07-1979
Reported in : 1980MPLJ525; [1980]46STC379(MP)
J.S. Verma, J.1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, carries on business in automobiles, spare parts and other goods at Indore and is a registered dealer under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). For the period 1st April, 1967, to 31st March, 1968, the petitioner-firm filed four quarterly returns; but all these returns were admittedly filed late. The petitioner was accordingly given a notice (annexure A) dated 25th September, 1970, requiring the petitioner, inter alia, to show cause why penalty under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a reply (annexure B) showing cause against imposition of penalty, in which it was stated, relying on the decision of this Court in Pyarelal v. State of M.P. 1971 M.P.L.J. 249, that mere late filing of return did not render the dealer liable for penalty under Section 17(3) of the Act. The assessment order in the present case was passed on 31st March, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-08-1979
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ401MP; 1979MPLJ561
ORDERG.P. Singh, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1 in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is an association of officer-employees of Bank of India and petitioners 2 to 4 are officer-employees of the said Bank. The petitioners challenge the validity of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1978, and Bank of India Officer-Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.2. The Bank of India Limited was a company with limited liability constituted and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1882. By the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the existing Banks, including the Bank of India Ltd., specified in column 1 of the First Schedule were nationalised. Section 3 of the Act constituted corresponding new Banks as specified in column 2 of the First Schedule. By Section 4 of the Act, the undertaking of every existing Bank stood transferred to and vested in the corresponding new Bank, As a result, the undertaking of the Bank of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-16-1979
Reported in : [1982]49STC164(MP)
R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.1. By this reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:Whether or not, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty on the assessee for late submission of the prescribed quarterly returns and late payment of tax due in respect of the respective returns was legal, proper and justified ?2. The material facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of the case are these :The assessee is a dealer in motor vehicles, motor chassis, tractors, their spare parts, petrol and lubricants, etc. He was assessed to sales tax by order dated 17th July, 1969, for the period 1st January, 1966, to 31st December, 1966. The Sales Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,35,000 on the assessee under Section 17(3) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had submitted the four quarterly retu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-30-1979
Reported in : (1980)IILLJ287MP; 1979MPLJ764
ORDERG.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petitions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22, 27, 28, 41 and 54 all of 1978. The petitioners in all these petitions are trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (Act 16 of 1926) and are recognised as Representative Unions under Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (Act No. 27 of 1960). hereinafter referred to as the State Act. The State Act was amended by the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (No. 14 of 1977), hereinafter called the Ordinance, which came into force on 1st January, 1978. The Ordinance was repealed and replaced by the Amending Act No. 8 of 1977 which came into force on 4th April, 1978. A notice was issued to the petitioners on 2nd January, 1978 under Section 16(ii-a) of the State Act as amended, to show cause why their recognition as representative unions may not be cancelled on the ground that on the date of coming into force of the aforesaid O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-04-1979
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1485
Faizanuddin, JJ.1. This is a reference of the single Bench of this High Court which raises an important and indeed an interesting question relating to the powers of the High Court and the Court of Session to issue directions for grant of anticipatory bail to persons who have been released on bail during committal proceedings and have not yet been committed in custody to the Court of Session for trial, but who apprehend that they may at the time of committing the case to the Court of Session be remanded to custody by the committing Magistrate.2. In this reference we are not much concerned about the facts as they exist before the trial Court, but it would be appropriate to refer and state the essential part of the relevant facts in brief so as to appreciate the points at issue, properly and effectively.3. The factual aspect of this case which emerges out, giving rise to this reference is that one Keshev Ram Dubey lodged a report in the Police Station, Pawai against the four accused/appli...
Tag this Judgment!