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!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP245; 1978MPLJ633
Verma, J. 1. By our order dated 13-4-1978, we have allowed the application made by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay in filing this appeal. While doing so, in that order we had stated that the reasons for holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies also to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No, 68 of 1976), will be given later. Accordingly, we are now stating the reasons for taking this view.2. Shri V.S. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on Hukumdev Narain v. Lalit Narain, AIR 1974 SC 480 contended that the different limitation of thirty days prescribed in Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as a result of the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1976, excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1%3 to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by virtu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1979]120ITR257(MP)
A.P. Sen, C.J.1. This is a writ petition by Nathuram Kapoor to quash the notice issued by the ITO, 'B' Ward, Indore, dated March 29, 1973, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening of his assessment for the assessment year 1956-57.2. The assessee is a wholesale dealer in cloth and yarn. For the assessment year 1956-57, the accounting year of which ended on 31st March, 1956, the petitioner was assessed on a total income of Rs. 33,077 under Section 23(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as per return filed by him. Along with the return, the petitioner filed profit and loss account. The ITO, 'A' Ward, Indore, by his order of assessment dated January 15, 1957, accepted the return stating that there was all round improvement in results due to the improved tone of the market. It appears that the attention of the ITO was not drawn to the fact that there was a cash credit entry in the books of account for that year showing a deposit by Capt. Narendra-singh Motilal Bhandari to the tun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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
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!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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!