Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1975]35STC298(MP)
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Board of Revenue, on a direction given by this court dated 15th January, 1969, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 233 of 1967, has referred the following two questions for our opinion :(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material to enhance the gross turnover from Rs. 5,02,456 to Rs. 5,18,755 and whether the enhancement was legal and(2) Whether the sales of batasa, sugar-candy and chironjidana can be regarded as sales of sugar within the meaning of entry No. 41 of Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?2. This reference had come up before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by B. Dayal, C. J., and S.P. Bhargava, J., which by order dated 16th July, 1971, directed that the entire reference be placed before a Full Bench to consider whether the question decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Channulal Motilal v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP196
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This appeal, filedby the plaintiff Durga Prasad, is directed against the Judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Chhind-wara, dated 25-7-1970, decreeing his claim for damages for Rs. 36,000/- for wrongful extraction and sale of about 1,800 tons of manganese ore against the defendant No. 1, Mst. Parveen Foujdar, together with interest at 4% per annum thereon from the date of the decree i.e., from 25-7-70 till realisation, as against his claim fox recovery of damages amounting to Rupees 50,000/- for loss of profits due to wrongful extraction and sale of manganese ore, and dismising his suit against the other defendants, including the defendant No. 3, the State of Madhya Pradesh.By the appeal, the plaintiff seeks a modification of the decree, and prays that the dismissal of the suit against the defendant No. 3, the State of Madhya Pradesh be set aside, and a decree for Rupees 50,000/- as damages be passed against the defendants Nos. 1 and 3. There is no appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP230
B.R. Dube. J. 1. The questions which are referred to the Full Bench for opinion are as under : (i) Whether an unregistered lease-deed can be used to show the nature and character of possession of the defendant that is whether he is a tenant in the premises or not and (ii) Whether assuming the demise of the premises to be under unregistered lease deed Ex. P.2, then whether a monthly tenancy can be presumed on the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The facts- giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the defendants on the basis of an unregistered lease deed dated 13-7-1972 vide Ex. P.2. It was alleged that the plaintiff had purchased the suit house from the defendant No. 1 on 13-7-1972 under a registered sale-deed and he later became her monthly tenant on a rent of Rs. 170/- per month. The tenancy was for a period of one year commencing from 13-7-1972 and it was for non-residential purposes. It was also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976MP194
A.P. Sen, J.1. This judgment will also govern the disposal of First Appeal No. 121 of 1971 (Daryao Singh v. Smt. Halkibai and others.These appeals brought from a common judgment of Shri R. L. Sanghani, IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, dated 2nd September 1971, raise a common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: The field Khasra No, 77/6/2, area 29.54 acres, situate in village Kondari, belonged to Major Wall Mohammad, By an agreement dated 14-6-1954, Ex. P-19, he agreed to sell the field to Barelal for Rs. 3692.50 p. pursuant to the agreement, he received Rs. 1,000 by way of earnest money. On 2-8-1954 Barelal paid him Rs. 700, vide receipt, Ex. P-20. Barelal paid Rs. 1,848 in all but could not arrange for the balance and evidently abandoned the contract in favour of Ganesh Singh, his brother-in-law, i.e., wife's brother. The balance consideration of Rs. 1844.50 was, accordingly, paid by Ganesh Singh, Wali M...
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 : 1977(1)ELT92(MP); 1977MPLJ394
G.P. Singh, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, Universal Cables Ltd., calls into question 13 orders passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur on 10th/11th September, 1975, under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, imposing penalty to the tune of nearly Rs. 2 crores in respect of properzi rods removed by the petitioner from its properzi mill from 1st May, 1970 to 23rd May, 1971. The petitioner also prays for quashing of 15 show cause notices which were issued by the Assistant Collector before the said 13 orders were passed by the Collector.2. The petitioner is an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner carries on business of manufacturing and dealing in cables and conductors required for transmission of electricity. The petitioner has its cable factory at Satna. For the purpose of manufacturing cables and conductors, the petitioner requires aluminium wire rods commonly known as properzi rods a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977MP74; 1977MPLJ74
Shiv Dayal, C.J.1. This writ petition and the other writ petition (Misc. Petition No. 35 of 1976) under Article 226 o the Constitution challenge the validity of the M. P. Dhan Parichalan Skeem (Pratishedh) Adhiniyam, 1975 (Act No. 19 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground of want of legislative competence in the State Legislature, as also for vagueness and arbitrariness and as a colourable piece of legislation and fraud on the Constitution, and further as violative of the fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution. During the course of the final hearing of these petitions, leave was sought to amend them. It was granted as the learned Advocate-General had no objection. By the amendment, the Act is further challenged as in contravention of Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution.2. Section 3 of the Act reads thus:--'No person shall promote or conduct any money circulation scheme or enrol as a member in any such scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP218; 1978MPLJ562
Sharma, J.1. This is a petitionunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ setting aside the Award, dated 27-4-1970, given by Land Acquisition Officer, Gwalior in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/56/23/7 (Annexure-B). The petitioner has also challenged Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as being unconstitutional.2. The case of' the petitioner, a body corporate constituted under the Town Improvement Trust Act is that in the city of Gwalior near Jinsinala an open piece of land, commonly known as Garud Saheb ka Bada, 3 bigas and 5 biswas in area, was acquired for Housing Development Scheme. The petitioner has referred to the different notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act. Tahsildar, Gwalior obtained possession over the land and handed it over to the petitioner on 29-11-1957.3. Notification under Section 9 was also issued in the proceedings relating to the acquisition. Some persons, as have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP100; 1978CriLJ585; 1978MPLJ238
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. Devisingh the first appellant, had admittedly not attained the age of 16 years on the date of the offence. He was then a 'child' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2(c) of the M. P. Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (No. 15 of 1970) (hereinafter called the 'Bal Adhiniyam'). He was tried for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Penal Code. Be was, along with three other accused, tried by the Sessions Judge, Seoni, who found him guilty of that offence. However, he was dealt with under Section 6 of the Bal Adhiniyam. 2. He preferred this appeal for his acquittal. When the appeal went before a Division Bench, the following question arose, which has been referred to us for opinion:-- 'Whether the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by the provisions of the Bal Adhiniyam, 1970, on Juvenile Courts to try a 'child' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2 (c) of the Adhiniyam for all offences, including those punishable with life impr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1979)13CTR(MP)142; [1980]124ITR347(MP)
Sohani, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act'. By this reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following questions of law to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the income of the assessee became liable to be assessed in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 and not in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that as the liability itself was disputed by M/s. Kalyanmal Mills, the assessee's right to receive remuneration or commission under the terms of the agreement accrued only on the decision of the High Court on December 14, 1965 '2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : The assessee, Sardar Arjunsingh Ahluwalia, who was assessed as an individual, died during the pendency of these pr...
Tag this Judgment!