Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1986MPLJ314; [1985]60STC184(MP)
1. This judgment shall also dispose of Misc. Civil Case No. 494 of 1981.2. This reference is made by the Tribunal at the instance of the dealer under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, to answer the following questions of law, namely :(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings under Section 39(2) of the Act were lawful ?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reading and interpretation of the declaration contained in form XII-A was proper and correct and the levy of additional tax in the form of penalty under Section 8(2) of the Act was lawful and justified ?3. The dealer, M/s. Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar of Rewa, deals in paper, strawboard, binding cloth and exercise books. The relevant periods of assessment are 7th October, 1966 to 31st March, 1967 and 1st April, 1967 to 31st October, 1967 which have given rise to these two references. The dealer purchased paper from the Orient Paper Mills in this State...
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 : AIR1972MP43; 1971MPLJ898
A.P. Sen, J.1. This judgment will also govern the disposal of First Appeal No. 88 of 1965 (Firm Gopichand Sarju Prasad v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) heard along with this appeal.2. These appeals arise out of a suit for damages wherein the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 21,975/- as damages for breach of a contract. The trial Judge has given a decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of Rs. 4,800/- and dismissed the rest of the claim of the plaintiffs. The State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal against the decree granted to the plaintiffs who have filed First Appeal No. 88 of 1965 with regard to the claim which was disallowed by the trial Judge.3. The facts shortly stated are as follows. On 26th June 1959, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa issued an advertisement in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra stating that 4301.71 cft. of timber lying at the forest depot at Jhiria would be sold by auction on 2nd July 1959. The auction on that day was, however, postponed to 9th July 1959 as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965MP77
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 22 of 1963.2. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Cash Grants Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The petitioners seek a declaration that the Act is invalid, ultra vires and unenforceable and pray that the opponent State be restrained by a suitable direction from putting the Act into operation.3. One of the petitioners claims to be the recipient of a cash payment of Rs. 500 per month as a muafidar from the respondent-State. The other petitioner says that as a silledar he is entitled to receive a cash payment of Rs. 72.50 nP. per month from the State, The petitioners claim that their right to receive these cash payments is 'property right' and that the impugned legislation has been enacted for the purpose of depriving them and other 'recipients of cash grants' of their property rights. Shortly stated their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1980MP129; 1980MPLJ729
Sohani, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27th April, 1978 passed by the State Government under Section 41 (1) (a) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, removing the petitioner from the office of the Councillor of Municipal Council, Susner, with effect from the date of the order and further directing under Sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Act that the petitioner shall be disqualified for further election, selection or reappointment to the office of the councillor for a period of four years from the date of his removal from the membership of the Council.2. This petition initially came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court which, by its order dated 21st September, 1978, held that the decision reported in Laxminarayan v. State of M. P. (1974 MPLJ 314) : (AIR 1975 Madh Pra 71) holding that the State Government, while passing an order of removal under Section 41 (2) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP154; 1969MPLJ327
Singh, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing an order of the State Government passed on 23rd April, 1968 under Section 422 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 superseding the Municipal Corporation Indore for a period of one year with effect from 23rd April, 1968.2. The last elections to the Corporation were held in February, 1965 in which the petitioner was elected as a Councillor on the Congress ticket for ward No. 31. Had the Corporation not been superseded, the petitioner and other Councillors would have ordinarily continued in office till March, 1969.3. On 20th December, 1967 the State Government proposed to supersede the Corporation and issued a notice to it to show cause why an order retiring all the Councillors and superseding it for one year should not be passed. The action proposed was based on the following three charges:'(1) That on 29-8-1967 the Corporation was to ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP117
Pandey, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against-(i) an order dated 2nd February 1965 whereby R. S. Shukla, Special Secretary to the State Government in the Home Department, approved under Section 68D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), Schemes Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 with certain modifications, all these Schemes having been prepared and published earlier under Section 68C of the Act; (ii) the subsequent publication of Scheme No. 2 in the Official Gazette dated 12th February 1965 as required by Section 68D (3) of the Act; and (iii) a notice dated 26th February 1965 Issued under Section 68F (2) of the Act by which certain permits held by the petitioner for some routes covered by Scheme No. 2 were cancelled. 2. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 126 of 1965, some other existing operators have claimed similar reliefs in regard to the same Scheme No. 2. For like reliefs, similar Miscellaneous Petitions, Nos. 129 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ767b
1. In this and in other connected Writ Petitions Nos. 3334, 2484, 2118, 2194, 2216, 2277, 2376, 2506, 2523, 2923, 3312, 3482, 3573, 3061, 3607, 3608, 3612, 3621, 3631, 3635, 3636, 3643, 3659, 3666, 3697, 3702, 3189, 2415, 3616, 3617, 2383, 3699, 2262, 2258, 3703, 2382 and 2249 of 1990 and 3, 4, 5, 10, 47, 49, 101, 102, 110, 216, 217, 255, 274, 415, 463 and 218 of 1991, the disposal of which shall be governed by this order challenge is to the legislative competence and the vires of certain provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990, (Act No. 13 of 1990} and Rules made thereunder. 2. The Indian polity has recognised the village panchayats and Janpad panchayats as the basic units of a Government. With the awakening of the desire to participate in the governance of the State, the demand for decentralisation of political power increased. In the erstwhile State of C. P. & Berar there were two Acts. The Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946 and the Central Provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP166; 1965MPLJ702
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is by the plaintiff-husband against the decree, dated 23rd August 1961 passed by Shri P. V. Muzumdar, First Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 22 of 1960 dismissing the petitioner's claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.2. The appellant had presented his petition in the Court of the District Judge who, however, transferred the case for trial to the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Indore, in pursuance of a distribution memo dated 1st January 1960. The appellant sought restitution of conjugal rights on the allegation that the respondent had been married to him on 18th June 1941 and that she had left her husband's house some time in the year 1959 without any reasonable cause. It was also alleged that there were five issues born to the parties after the marriage.3. The respondent denied that she was the married wife of the appellant. She also alleged that she f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1990MP340; 1990MPLJ556
B.C. Varma, J. 1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the vires of Section 30(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1981 (Act No. 35 of 1981). This provision is as follows:'30. Disqualification for being office bearer of Panchayat.-- (1) No person shall be eligible to be an office-bearer of a Panchayat who - XXXXX (e) has been dismissed from the service of the State Government or Central Government or the Panchayat or any other, Local Authority or a Co-operative Society or any public sector undertaking under the control of the Central Government or the State Government; or' 2. As a step towards implementation of the directive principle contained in Article 40 of the Constitution of India that the States shall take steps to organise village Panchayats and endow them with such power and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self government, the State of Madhya Pradesh first enacted the Madhya P...
Tag this Judgment!