Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-02-1959
Reported in : AIR1959MP195
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore against the orders of the assessing authority passed in 1951 assessing the petitioner to Industrial Tax for the years 1940-48 and Excess Profits Duty for the years 1943-46.2. The undisputed facts in this case are these. In the year 1927 a tax was imposed on the cotton mills at Indore in respect of income, profits and gains earned by them. This was under the Industrial Tax Rules 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the original Rules') promulgated by the Holkar Government. Under the Rules as amended from time to time, provisional assessments were first made and the amount of tax used to be realized.Later, the assessments were finalised by a Board against whose orders a first appeal lay to the Member-in-charge Commerce and Industry and a second appeal lay to the Government. In 1949 the Rules were amended by the Indore Industrial Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-30-1959
Reported in : AIR1959MP301
ORDER1. The following question has been referred to this Bench for opinion by one of us (Tare, J.) :'Whether the question whether Gunhari and Sitaram inherited the tenancy lands of their father before 1897 as tenants-iu-common or as joint tenants ought to be decided on the principle of stare decisis or according to the view of the law declared by their Lordships of the Federal Court in Re Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, AIR 1941 F. C. 72.'2. The genealogy of the parties is as under: ABINATH (died before 1897) | ___________________________________________________________ | | Gunhari Sitaram (died in 1897) (died in 1954) | | __________________________________ _____________________________________________________ | | | | | | | Sumitra Gouribai Hira Janki Deok Rewati Derhin (died) (Plff. 1) (Plff. 2) (died) (deft. 1) (deft. 2) (died) | | | ____________________ | | Firat Saradabai Salik Moti (deft. 3) (deft. 4)(Plff. 3) (Plff. 4) 3. The suit property consisting of occupancy lands...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-30-1959
Reported in : AIR1959MP425
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the civil judge second class, Indore, permitting, the plaintiff non-applicant M/s Central India Motors to amend the plaint in the suit so as to, convert the suit originally filed by Shri Lilaram as Karla of a joint Hindu family firm bearing the name M/s Central India Motors into one as on, behalf of M/s Central India Motors, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act.2. In the suit, as originally filed, the plaintiff alleged that M/s Central India Motors was a joint Hindu family firm of which the Karta was Lilaram; that the plaintiff firm sold to the defendant Govindsingh, who was the Sales Manager and representative of the defendant M/s Vyas Automobiles Nagpur, five motor car tyres and seat-covers; and that the defendant has failed to pay the price of the same. The plaintiff sued to recover the price of these goods together with sales tax and interest thereon.In its written statement the defendant petitioner raised...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-02-1959
Reported in : AIR1960MP27
Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act against the order of the Election Tribunal, Chhatarpur, dated 16-7-1958 by which the appellant's election petition under Section 81 of the Act calling in question the election of the respondents 1; and 2 from the Khurai Rural Constituency to the Slate Legislative Assembly was dismissed.2. The constituency in this case is a double- member constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the Scheduled Castes. The polling took place on 9-3-1957 and the respondents 1 and 2, who secured the largest number of votes, were declared elected to the general and the reserved seat respectively. On 25-4-1957, the appellant, who contested the election for the general seat, filed his election petition alleging that the respondent 1, and others acting for the respondents 1 and 2, had committed a number of corrupt practices detailed in schedules A and B and that the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1959
Reported in : AIR1959MP365
ORDER1. The petitioner is an industrial concern producing, for its own consumption, electric energy in its own power house. It has been taxed to electricity duty under Section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Electricity Duty Act of 1949 as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1956 (Act VII of 1956 Chap IV). It has prayed that a proper writ or direction should be granted declaring the Electricity Duty Act as ultra vires of the Constitution and void as against him, and consequently to enjoin the State Government from levying the duty, and ordering it to refund the duty already collected.2. The petition has been fully and very ably presented by Shri Chitale, who has on our request, dealt with all the grounds he relies upon. Firstly, it is urged that even within the framework of the Act as amended, the duty cannot be levied from a producer producing electric power lor his own consumption or a consumer using electric power produced by himself. Secondly, the argume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-13-1959
Reported in : AIR1959MP288
Bhutt, C. J.1. This is a letters patent appeal of the C. P. Syndicate Ltd., Nagpur, against the order of Mudholkar J. in Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 163 of 1949, confirming the order of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in civil suit No. 3-B of 1934, by which its execution application was held to be barred by limitation.2. The C. P. Syndicate Ltd., Nagpur obtained a consent money decree on 22nd July 1936 in the Court of the, First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in civil suit No. 3-B of 1934, against Hasan Ali, Gulam Abbas and Abdul Kadar who are brothers. The decree was subsequently transferred for - execution to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara. The decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree on 5-4-1941, which was dismissed on 13th December, 1941. A fresh execution application was filed On the same date, namely, 13th December 1941. Hasan Ali made an objection to the execution alleging that on 18th July 1936 the decree-holder ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-06-1959
Reported in : AIR1960MP136
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the Court below for specific performance of a contract of sale of a house.2. The house in suit belonged to respondent No. 1 Haji Suleman, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1. Haji Suleman migrated to Pakistan before the smt. The house in suit was declared as evacuee property on 1-8-1952. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Raigarh, was irnpleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit.3. The plaintiff's case is that on 18-1-1949 the defendant No. 1, Haji Suleman, agreed to sell the house in suit to him for Rs. 3100/- only. He executed a sale-deed but it could not be registered. Rupees 1000/- were paid by the plaintiff as part consideration of the safe and Rs. 2100/- are still due. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to specific performance of the contract On payment of the amount of Rs. 2100/- and prayed the Court to order the defendant No. 2 (Custodian) to execute the necessa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-16-1959
Reported in : AIR1959MP353
Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner seeks a writ against the non-applicants to compel them to complete the election to the office of the President Municipal Committee, Katni, District Jabalpur. 2. The Collector Jabalpur had published a programme of election to the Municipality of Katni according to which the nomination papers had to be filed by 12-5-1958 and the polling was to take place on 13-6-1958. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for contesting the office of President on 5-5-1958. Section 18 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act) provided for the election of the President directly by all the voters. It was, however, amended by the Madhya Pra-desh Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. 14 of 1958) which came into force on 5-5-1958. By this amendment the President is now to be elected by the members of the Committee. Section 7 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-31-1959
Reported in : AIR1960MP358; [1960(1)FLR499]
Krishnam, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Bench, in Civil Misc. Case No. 94 of 1956, dismissing the present appellant's petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, and under supervisory jurisdiction, questioning the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhopal, dated 23-10-1956, in the dispute between the appellant, and respondents 3 and 4.2. The crux of the application before the Single Bench was, (i) that the Tribunal had not been properly constituted; (ii) that in any case, it was bound to take the assistance of assessors; and (iii) that it was incompetent to deal with and decide by award the dispute regarding minimum wage, separately from the two other items of dispute mentioned in the reference. It was also averred that the petitioner-appellant was not estopped from raising these questions on account of its failure to raise them at the commencement of the proceedings before the Tribunal; t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-21-1959
Reported in : AIR1960MP86
Pandey, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of my Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother, Naik J. I fully agree with the conclusions of my Lord the Chief Justice. I had not at first intended to record a separate opinion, but since the main question involved is important, I feel, upon reflection, that I ought to express my opinion.2. The question is whether the lands covered by Clauses (i) to (iv) as enumerated in paragraph 7 of the opinion of my Lord the Chief Justice were Khudkasht lands within the meaning of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (II of 1917).3. Clause (5) of Section 2 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, which defines khudkasht, is as under:''Khudkasht' means that part of the home-farm of a mahal which is cultivated by the proprietor as such and which is not sir-land: Explanation (1) -- Land allowed to lie fallow according to agricultural practice shall be deemed to be cultivated. Explanation (2) -- In this definition 'pro...
Tag this Judgment!