Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2007)5VST260(MP)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. An important question has been raised by the petitioner in respect of applicability of provisions of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'M.P.C.T. Act') between 1.4.1995 and 24.12.2001 for enforcing the provisions of M.P. Hotel Tatha Vas Grihon Me Vilas Vastuon Par Kar Adhiniyam 1988 (for short 'Luxury Tax Act').2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition:It is therefore most humbly & respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased:To quash the Luxury tax asstt. order dated 21.6,2002 Annexure P-5.To hold that the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was not applicable in Luxury Tax Act, 1988 during the impugned period i.e. 1-11-1995 to 26-3-1999.To hold that Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer committed mistake in not issuing demand notice in form VI as prescribed under the Luxury Tax Act.To quash the notice for recovery from third parties issued in form 45 of the Commercial Tax Act Annexure P-7.To hold that the petitioner was not entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006MP167; 2006(2)MPHT45; 2007(1)MPLJ181
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. In this petition filed in public interest, petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in permitting non-forest activities in the forest area. Though this petition related to a limited area to be developed by the Special Axea Development Authority (SADA) respondent No. 6 and has challenged the development plan of the said Authority in which forest area is being utilised for non-forest activities for construction of Counter Magnet City and permission of mining in the forest area, during the course of arguments, this being a public interest litigation, the Court has enquired about the non-forest activities in the district of Gwalior and issuance of mining lease to various persons on the forest land. In view of the contradictory reply by the Department of Forest and Revenue, a committee was constituted which was headed by Justice R.B. Dixit, a retired Judge of this Court, Committee submitted its report. State was not satisfied with the said report and furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas700(MP)
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 377 of 1985 (Bhandari Iron and Steel Co. P. Ltd. v. Dr. Gokuldas], which arises out of the same order dated October 1, 1985, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 6-B of 1962. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 1, 1985, passed by the 7th Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 6B of 1962, thereby rejecting the appellants' objection and refusing to set aside the sale in execution case involving mortgaged properties. 3. Brief facts of this appeal are that the appellants, M/s. Bhandari Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indore, mortgaged certain properties, including the land sold, in execution with the State Bank of Indore, which filed a suit No. 6B of 1962 and obtained a decree for Rs. 20,19,435.83 against appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who were directors and guarantors of the first appellant, the company. The first execution was filed by the decree-holder-bank o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- Challenging the orders Annexure P/1 and P/2, by which promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner Excise is granted to respondent No.3, superseding the petitioner and the order seeking suo motu review of a departmental proceeding closed against the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.2- Petitioner was initially appointed as a District Excise Officer on 1.9.1999. He claims to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community. In the year 2005, while petitioner was posted as District Excise Officer, Mandsaur a show-cause notice was issued to him on 5.11.2008, pointing out various irregularities in the matter of recovery of revenue. Petitioner is alleged to have filed reply denying the allegations. However, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 3.3.2006, to which the petitioner submitted his reply and pointed out his defence. Being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority exonerated the petitioner of all the charges an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT1; 2003(3)MPLJ554
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1.Expressing the view that the issues involved arc of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 MP 116 and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan, 1979 MPLJ 644, wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not a condition precedent to make a reference for a decision of a question by a Larger Bench, the Division Bench referred the matter in entirety to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench and that is how the batch of cases has been placed before us.2. The bunch of matters can be categorised into two compartments; one batch assail is to certain provisions and rules of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires and in the other challenge is to the certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short 'the Municipalities Act') and the rules framed for carrying out ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004MP182
Dipak Mishra, J.1. Expressing the view that the issues involved are of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Mall, v. The Union of India, AIR 1977 Madh Pra 116 (FB) and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan. 1979 MPLJ 644 : (AIR 1980 Madh Pra 43) (FB), wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not condition precedent to make a reference for a decision of a question by a larger Bench, the Division Bench referred the matter in entirety to be adjudicated by a larger Bench and that is how the batch of cases has been placed before us.2. The bunch of matters can be categorised into two compartments, one batch assail is to certain provisions and rules of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires and in the other challenge is to the certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short the Municipalities Act) and the rules framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996MP116
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. In some of these writ petitions, provisions of Entry Tax Act, 1976 (for short the Act) are challenged as unconstitutional. In all the writ petitions, except M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, the notification dated 29-6-1990 of the State Government issued under Section 4-A (2) of the Act specifying local areas in goods for imposition of entry tax at the rate of 10% for limestone and levy and collection of such entry tax are challenged. In M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, levy of entry tax at similar rate on entry of limestone within a local area are challenged. In M. P. No. 1521 of 1991, similar levy of entry-tax into a local area is challenged- In some of the writ petitions, subsequent notification dated 2-2-1994 is challenged. 2. We have heard various counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged the following points for consideration : (i) The impugned notifications relate to lime (stone) and not l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP261
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal brought by the defendant No. 1, M/s. Mishrabandhu Karyalaya, Jabalpur and its partners, from the Judgment and decree of the 5th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 31st August 1964, decreeing against them, the plaintiff Sheoratanlal Koshal's claim (A) for recovery of Rupees 15,307.04 paise with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of suit, i.e., from 1st January 1963 till realisation, due on account of the arrears of royalty payable to him on the sales effected upto the end of December 1959 of the book entitled 'Saral Middle School Ank Ganeet', written by his son-in-law Maniram Vishwakarma, the copyright of which had been assigned to him; (B) for rendition of account of the sales effected by them of the book in question and other allied publications thereof, as per the Hyderabad Syllabus or otherwise, during the years 1960, 61, 62 and until the date of accounting, so as to ascertain the amount of royalty which had accrued thereon and be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990(0)MPLJ55
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. It is not in dispute that the applicant i.e. Digamber Jain Hitopadeshini Sabha, Bina was registered as public trust under the provisions of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. The non-applicants made a complaint to the Registrar of Public Trusts, Khurai that the trust property was not being properly managed by the President and the Secretary of the Trust and that they were acting contrary to the purpose of the Trust. On this, purporting to act under section 26 of the Act, the Registrar of Public Trusts applied to the Court for directions in the matter. On receipt of the application, the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar at Khurai registered the case as Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 7 of 1983 and proceeded to deal with it under section 27 of the Act. The complainants were arrayed as the applicants in the case. The public trust, through its Chairman and Secretary, was arrayed as the non-applicant. Certain preliminary objections were raised on behal...
Tag this Judgment!