Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ925
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in these cases. Hence, common arguments are heard and the cases are being disposed of by common order.2. Petitioner in M. P. No. 3340 of 1989 carries on business in purchase and sale of utensils. Petition relates to assessment under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, the State Act) for the period 13-11-1985 to 2-11-1986. He is a registered dealer under the State Act. Sales Tax Officer completed the assessment on the basis of the report of the Flying Squad. According to the petitioner, though he maintained true and correct accounts and submitted true and correct returns, S.T.O. issued notice in Form-XVI dated 6-11-1987 against proposed assessment and levy of penalty under Section 43(1). Notice proposed levy of penalty under Section 17(3) and assessment under Section 18(4) of the State Act. The petitioners contended that the notice was illegal as it was issued without application of mind, that the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2009)19VST573(MP)
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The Division Bench while considering the appeal of the State Government against the Order dated May 4, 2006, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 1169 of 2004, has referred the following question for consideration of the larger Bench in view of the cleavage of opinion between decisions rendered by the Full Bench, the Division Bench and the single Bench:Whether coal ash is a part of cinder and covered by the term 'coal' in entry No. 22 in Part V of Schedule II of the Commercial Tax Act or the said commodity would be taxable under entry 39 in Part IV?2. Initially a three-judge Bench was constituted to consider the said question, but the Bench on being apprised that the question also involves the legality of the decision of the Full Bench in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax , on being requested by the Full Bench of three judges, the honourable Chief Justice has constituted this Bench comprising five judges.3. The appeal befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(3)MPHT406
Dipak Misra, J.1. Almost four centuries back it was proclaimed with an intense dramatic overtone by one of the centripodal characters of Websterian tragedy :'on pain of death do not name death to me it is a word infinitely terrible'If we further travel in the time machine and penetrate deeper into the ancient sayings one would come across a sensitive observation, an unforgettable one, leaving an unfailing impact on the mind :'Chita, chinta dwayoormadhya, Chinta tatra gariyasi, Chita dahati nirjivam Chinta dahati Sajeevakam'2. We have said so in the beginning because it was in a way imperative and exigent to say so as we are obligated at this juncture to deal with the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No. 30/98 for confirmation of death sentence imposed on the accused, namely, Jangvali Singh and Rohini and further to deal with the appeals on merits preferred at their instance. Before we advert to cogitate on the factual depiction that has g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. By means of this public interest litigation, a Non-government organization, namely 'Narmada Bachao Aandolan' seeks to highlight the plight of land oustees, majority of whom, belong to weaker section of the society. The aforesaid land oustees are being uprooted for construction of Upper Beda Dam on river Beda, a tributary of holy river Narmada which is also known as 'Reva' in central India and is the fifth largest river in the Indian subcontinent. It is worth mentioning that Narmada River has huge water potential and has 41,000 m. cum of average annual flow. In order to utilize the water potential of the river Narmada and to provide the water for drinking as well as irrigation purposes to areas which face the problem of water scarcity, several dams and canals have been constructed on river Narmada and on its tributaries; one of them is Upper Beda dam with which we are concerned in the case in hand.2. The petitioner claims to be an organization of the oustees working for last twenty y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP29; 1970CriLJ238; 1969MPLJ732
Pandey, J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by Golwalkar and Bhave, JJ., for examining the correctness of the view taken by Newasker and Sen, JJ. in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shankerlal, Cri. Appeal No. 180 of 1966, D/- 25-8-1966 (MP), which was decided along with State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abbasbhai, 1967 MP LJ 872=(1967 Cri LJ 1723). The same question is raised in Ataul Haque v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Cri. Revn. No. 431 of 1966 (MP)), and Kundanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Cri. Revn. No. 591 of 1966 (MP)), and, therefore, these two cases also are before us for the same purpose.2. In the first case, the respondent Chhotekhan was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated milk and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or, in default, to like imprisonment for a further term of six months. In appeal, the Sessions Judge acquitted Chhotekhan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1305
Kaul, C.J.1. This is an application purporting; to be made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant Dayabhai Poonambhai Patel is a resident of Barwani. Prior to its integration with Madhya Bharat Barwani was an independent State governed by its Ruler styled His Highness the Maharana of Barwani. According to the applicant by an agreement dated 30-11-1947 His Highness the Maharana granted to him for the value of a consideration, a monopoly (sole right) for transport of passengers by motor buses within the State. One of the terms of the agreement was that no other buses or taxies except chose of the applicant would be allowed to ply on hire within (the State territory. That on 29-6-1948 the State of Barwani was merged in & became a part of the union of Madhya Bharat. This was effected in pursuance of a Covenant entered into on 22-4-1948 between the Ruler of Barwani & the Rulers of a number of other States in Central India This had the sanction of the then Govt. of India. The U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP122
G.P. Singh, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, one of the points raised is that Section 19 (c) (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, is ultra vires for two reasons: First, that it offends Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution; and secondly, that it suffers from excessive delegation. When the petition came up for admission before a Division Bench (K. K. Dubey and R. K. Tankha, JJ.), the learned Judges referred the petition to a Bench of five Judges. It was also impliedly indicated that the Bench of five Judges would first consider the question whether, when in a petition the constitutional validity of a State law is raised, the petition can be placed before a Bench of two Judges for purposes of admission in view of Article 228A of the Constitution. It is on this question that we have heard arguments and it is this question which. I proceed to decide by this order. 2. Under the rules of the High Court made in exercise of the powers conferred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1979MP173; 1978MPLJ70
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc, Petition No. 396 of 1977.2. The petitioners in both these petitions which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the constitutional validity of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 19-C of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 19.60, hereinafter referred to as the Act.3. Petitioner No. 1 in Misc. Petition No. 342 of 1977 is a citizen of India. Petitioners 2 and 3 in this petition are co-operative societies registered under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 is a member of these societies. He is also a member of some other cooperative societies of Chhatarpur District. By order dated 23rd June 1977, passed under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 19-C of the Act, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, expelled the petitioner No. 1 from all the societies of which he was a member for a period of five years.4. The petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 396 of 1977 was a member of four co-operative soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT392
ORDERS.C. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition challenging the order dated 14th January, 2009 (Annexure P-l) passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1961') terminating the services of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that she is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and she was appointed by virtue of a process of selection conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. The petitioner in compliance to the appointment order dated 10th January, 2006 submitted her joining on 23rd January, 2006 at Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda, District Guna and thereafter started working as the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda, District Guna. The petitioner has further stated that the Accountant of the Janp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(3)MPHT326
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 12-10-2001 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby petitioner has been disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Nagar Panchayat, Rajgarh for a period of five years. Facts relevant for the disposal of the writ which He in a narrow compass need mention in brief.2. Petitioner was elected as President of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgarh, District Dhar on 28-12-1999.3. On 24-4-2000, the State Election Commission (respondent No. 1) issued a show-cause notice (Annexure P-1) to petitioner inter alia saying therein that in terms of Section 32-B of M.P. Municipalities Act every contesting candidate at an election of President has to submit within 30 days with the officer notified by the State Election Commission an account of his election expenses. It was said that since petitioner failed to submit the accounts as per the requirement of Section 32-B hence, why an action of disqualification as...
Tag this Judgment!