Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-23-1976
Reported in : AIR1977MP116; 1977MPLJ227
..... successor to the high court of judicature at nagpur in accordance with section 49 of the states reorganisation act, 1956. the petitioners have in detail stated as to how this high court was established by letters patent dated january 2, 1936, under section 219 of the government of india act, 1915. it is also stated that under cls. 33 and 34 of the letters patent it could even be provided for sitting of the judges at places ..... further held that it is a fundamental principle of the constitutional law that everything necessary to the exercise of the power is included in the grant thereof. in a later case harakchand v. union of india, air 1970 sc 1453 their lordships reiterated the rules of interpretation of the entries in the legislative lists referred to above and emphasised that it is the duty of the court to reconcile the entries and bring about a harmonious construction. ..... that the validity of the presidential orders (annexures 1 and 2 to the return of the registrar) and the vires of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 51 of the act have also been challenged; but that is only with a view to assail the orders of the chief justice by which the petitioners are aggrieved.39. a person need not challenge a particular statutory provision until he is actually affected by it. in fact ..... him.212. by the court: in accordance with the decision of the majority, the petition is hereby dismissed. we make no order as to costs of this petition. security amount shall be refunded to the petitioners. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-1976
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas532(MP)
J.S. Verma, J.1. This petition under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ') is primarily for a direction to wind up the company--' M/s. Nandlal Bhandari and Sons (Private) Ltd. ' Indore, or in the alternative to make certain directions under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act to grant the other reliefs specified in the petition. The petition came up for admission before Oza J. and was admitted by him on September 22, 1972, while deferring the question of advertisement to a later date. Notice was issued to the company which has opposed advertisement of the petition and filed I. A. No. 2049 of 1975 on August 20, 1975, for not advertising the petition, revoking the order of admission and dismissing the petition for winding up. This order shall govern the disposal of this application and decide the question regarding advertisement of the petition.2. The company--' M/s. Nandlal Bhandari and Sons (Private) Ltd. ' (hereinafter referred to as ' the company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-14-1976
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
Decided on : Jul-23-1976
Reported in : AIR1977MP217
Kondaiah, J. 1. This bunch of miscellaneous petitions, by the petitioners, gives rise to two short but interesting questions of law, (i) whether the Assistant Registrar is competent to determine a dispute between the financing bank and its members under Section 64 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and (ii) whether the appellate authority has jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Act to remand the matter before it to the file of the Deputy Registrar for disposal according to law?2. In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly refer to the material facts which are not only not in dispute but lie in a short compass that gave rise to this question.3. Petitioner Anant, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 270 of 1975, was a member of the Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Indore, the first respondent herein. By Resolution No. 63 passed by its Board, the respondent-Society expelled the petitioner from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-06-1976
Reported in : AIR1976MP169
C.P. Sen, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the grant of permits to the respondents 6 to 8 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The connected petitions of Mohanlal and Ors. v. S.T.A.T. and Ors. M.P. No. 528 of 1975, Rangnath v. S.T.A.T. and Ors. M.P. No. 775 of 1975 and Samrathmal Agarwal v. S.T.A.T. and Ors. M.P. No. 1354 of 1975 are also disposed of as they arise out of the same order and common questions are involved. The said petitioners are also parties in this petition.2. The Regional Transport Authority, Indore invited applications for three return trip permits on the regional route Dhar-Badwani (via Mangod, Amzera, Zirabad, Awalda, Manawar, Singhana, Chikalda, Rajghat). There were as many as 43 applicants and the R. T. A. by order dated 22-5-1972 granted one permit to each of the respondents 3 to 5 i.e. Mohanlal, Bhoj Yatayat Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and Gendalal for a period of three years. Appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-20-1976
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
Decided on : Mar-25-1976
Reported in : AIR1976MP187
Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall also dispose of First Appeal No. 153 of 1971. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that the plaintiff Parmanand Jain filed a suit on 9th October, 1968 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,041 against the defendants Choudhary Babulal and his son Rajendra Kumar. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants borrowed from him on 24th November 1967 a sum of Rs. 9,081 at 12 per cent interest. It was further alleged that the defendant Babulal executed a hand-note on the same date in the plaintiff's favour. The plaintiff in addition to the principal amount of Rs. 9,081 claimed interest amounting to Rs. 954 upto the date of the suit at 12 per cent and Rs. 6 as notice charges. The decree against Rajendra Kumar was claimed on the basis that the defendants carried on a joint business of Adhat in the name of Babulal Rajendra Kumar and the loan was taken for this business. The defendant Rajendra Kumar pleaded that he had nothing to do with the suit transactions and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-30-1976
Reported in : 1979(4)ELT495(MP)
S.S. Sharma, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the levy, assessment and recovery of the excise duty by the respondents on Coca-cola, Fanta-Orange and Fanta-Soda. In the alternative, the challenge is to the inclusion of transportation charges at the rate of Rs. 1.54 per crate in the assessable value of Coca-cola, Fanta-Orange and Fanta-Soda. A consequent prayer about the refund of the excise duty has also been made. 2. At the time of the hearing of this petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his challenge only to the inclusion of transportation charges in the assessable value of those items and abandoned other grounds of challenge We would, therefore, deal only with that question. 3. The case of the petitioner relevant for the disposal of this petition is as follows:- The petitioner, a limited Company, carries on business in manufacture, bottling and sale of aerated water having brands viz., (i) Coca-col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-17-1976
Reported in : AIR1976MP230; 1977MPLJ32
Rania, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a student of the Jiwaji University Gwalior hereinafter referred to as 'the University') for quashing the programme of B. E. examinations, which were to be held from 1st December, 1975.2. The petitioner is a student of Third Year B. E. (Civil) in the Madhav Institute of Technology and Science, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as M. I. T. S.). He is also the Convenor of the action committee of the M. I. T. S. Students union, Gwalior. The University published a news item (Annexure B) informing the students that examinations for Engineering Classes will be held from 1st December, 1975. The contention of the petitioner is that this action of the Uni-verity was in contravention of Regulation No. 3, which lays down that only two examinations will be held every year, one in November and the other in April. Accordingto him, the University has already held two examinations this year one in January and the other in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-28-1976
Reported in : [1976]38STC310(MP)
ORDERShiv Dayal, C.J. and S.S. Sharma, J.1.This is a reference under Section 44 of the M.P. Genera! Sales Tax Act. The Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, has referred the following two questions for answer:(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the Tribunal's finding that the tractors sold by the assessee were designed and manufactured for agricultural purposes, but were used by the purchaser for non-agricultural purposes also, though only in a small fraction of cases of the total sales, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the tractors sold by the assessee were not entitled to be treated as agricultural machinery and, thus, excluded from entry 44 of Part II of Schedule II to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?(2) Whether the period of limitation for revision proceedings under Section 39(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, runs against the assessee up to the date of issue of the notice by the Commissioner or up to the date whe...
Tag this Judgment!