Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2587
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Indian Stamp (U.P. Second Amendment) Act, 1997 (U.P. Act No. 23 of 1998) as well as the Notification, dated 9.9.1998 Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the order dated 14.9.1998 Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to realise the stamp duty on the basis of the above amendment in the Stamp Act, and to grant/renew licenses of the petitioner in this petition and in the connected writ petitions without compelling the petitioners to deposit stamp duty under the aforesaid U.P. Act No. 23 of 1998.2. The petitioners have annexed a copy of the impugned U.P. Act No. 23 of 1998 as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. A perusal of the above Act shows that by it, a new Article 38A has been added in Schedule 1B to the Indian Stamp Act. By this provision, new stamp duty on the licenses for various weapons as well as for various forms h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1982All226
ORDER1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity of Section 2 of U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, (U. P. Ordinance 26 of 1981), (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance 26 of 1981). This Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor on 14th Dec. 1981, on being satisfied that the circumstances existed which rendered it necessary for him to take immediate action.2. The main challenge before us in this petition was that of (validity of?) Section 2 of the Ordinance, which amended Section 6 of U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zilla Parishads Adhiniyam 1961, (hereinafter (referred) to as the Adhiniyam) Section 2 of the Ordinance is reproduced below.'2. In Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zilla Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the principal Act. (a) in Sub-section (1), after clause (v) the following clause shall be inserted, namely(vi) Such persons as are nominated (sic) with the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)21CTR(All)83; [1983]139ITR1043(All); [1981]6TAXMAN363(All)
R.M. Sahat, J. 1. Family feud between real brothers led to the filing of a First Information Report on October 3, 1970, by Chaturbhuj Das Maheshwari, for the theft of jewellery, against petitioner No. 1, his own brother, petitioner No. 2, wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3, their son-in-law. All of them were tried under Sections 379/411/424 of the IPC. On 14th July, they were acquitted and it was held that no theft of any property belonging to the informant took place from his room No. 77, Rani Mandi, Allahabad, and that he had not kept any valuables in his almirahs in the said house. The ornaments and jewellery (Exs. 1 to 82) were not proved to have been recovered from any hiding place from the house of Ganga Prasad or from the possession of Ram Gopal. In the operative portion of the order a direction was issued. The property Exs. 1 to 84 should be returned to Ganga Prasad under intimation to the I.T. authorities after the expiry of the period of appeal, if no appeal was fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2331
Giridhar Malaviya, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to consider the question of bar on jurisdiction of the Courts as it prescribed under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal procedure. However, since the entire case has also been referred to the Full Bench on the ground that the revision is very old and the proceedings in the trial Court are held up, it would be proper to set out the facts of the case in the beginning.2. One Smt. Sugia lodged a report against Ram Khelawan, Katwaru, Sita Ram and Chhote Lal on 4-6-1978 at police Station-Cantt., Varanasi alleging there in that on 23-2-1978 Ram Khelawan accused set up some other woman by asking her to impersonate Sugia and to get a fictitious sale deed executed in the name of Sugia. The report said that accused Katwaru and Sita Ram identified the impersonator as Sugia and accused Sita Ram had joined these persons and had conspired to get the said fictitious sale deed executed. After the First Information Report was lodged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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
Reported in : AIR1985MP42; 1985MPLJ32
Oza, Ag. C.J.1. The three appeals Nos. 4, 5 and 7, all of 1983, arise out of a composite order passed by Company Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Verma, by his order dated 3rd Oct. 1983 in Company Petition No. 5 of 1981. This order disposes of a prayer under Section 397 of the Companies Act and Sections 398 and 155 of the Companies Act. The prayer under Section 397 was rejected and against this the present appeal is No. 4 of 1983. Prayer under Section 398 has been partly allowed and, therefore, appeal No. 7 of 1983 is preferred against that part of the order and as the prayer under Section 155 was rejected, an appeal is preferred which is appeal No. 5 of 1983.2. In all these three appeals the question of maintainability of the appeals arises in view of the abolition of Letters Patent Appeals in Clause 10 by the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981, passed by the State Legislature and which received the assent of the President on 21st June 1981...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967MP34; [1967]63ITR689(MP)
Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Straw Products Ltd. a public company incorporated in the former State of Bhopal, prays that the Taxation Laws (Merged States) (Removal of Difficulties. Amendment Order, 1962, be declared ultra vires, inoperative and of no effect whatsoever, and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing assessments of income-tax made on it on 4-3-1958 for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54, as also the assessments made for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1960-61. The petitioner also seeks a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the assessments for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66. 2. The matter arises thus. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of straw-boards and other allied products. It was incorporated in the quondam State of Bhopal in 1938. Under an agreement concluded between the Company and the Government of the Bhopal State, the Company was exempted from p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP175
T.N. Singh, J. 1. One short, but important question of law has been raised for our decision in this matter. Whether a second appeal lies in respect of an order passed in a proceeding instituted under Section 275, Quanoon Mal (of erstwhile Gwalior State)? That is extracted below. nQk 275 nkok QkDd jgu ;k tjs jgu & vxj nkokQkDd jgu ;k tjs jgu fdlh nLrkost jftLVh 'kqnk dks : ls djuk ykfte vkos rks panrhu lky rglhynkj lkgc ds btykl esa vkB vkus ds LVkEi ij nk;j gksxkA rglhynkj dsgqDe ds vihy lwckr esa gksxk vkSj gqDe lwck lkgkc ukfrd gksxk-2. Obviously, it is not necessary, therefore, to refer to all aspects of the long travail which parties have suffered during the course of long 20 years' life of this lis, but to the undisputed facts relevant to the controversy, a reference is still necessary. Hardeva, prede-cessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was recorded as a Pakka Krishak of land measuring 6 Bighas and 6 Biswas, in village Mohammadpur, Pargana and District Gwalior. He submitted an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1957MP165
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking ii writ of prohibition against the District Judge, Bhind who is hearing an election petition. The facts of the case go far back and will have to be stated at some length.2. In the year 1955 in, the town of Gohad a municipal election was held. The petitioner Biharilal was a candidate in Ward No. 3, and the first three respondents were his rivals. The petitioner secured the largest number of votes and was declared elected. The first respondent filed an election petition under Section 10 of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954 (Act No. 1 of 1954) read with Rule 131 of the Rules framed thereunder. Before the District Judge an objection was taken to his jurisdiction to entertain the election petition, which the District Judge overruled.Against the order of the District Judge and to seek a writ of prohibition a petition was filed in the High Court of Madhya Bharat, and the High Court acting on its own ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(3)MPHT158; 2003(2)MPLJ408
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. This reference has been made to resolve the conflict between two sets of Single Bench decisions of this Court viz.; Sawal Singh, 2002(4) M.P.H.T. 200 = 2002(11) MPJR 169; Narsingh, 2002(11) MPJR 165; and Hanuman Datt, 2002(4) M.P.H.T. 343 = 2002(4) MPLJ 354, on the point of tenability of revision against an order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arising from the order of the Trial Court deciding application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. The question referred for our decision is : 'Whether the order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC deciding an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC one way or the other, can be challenged by taking recourse to revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC' 2. In Sawal Singh and Narsingh (supra), it is held that the order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC in which application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC wa...
Tag this Judgment!