Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Mohmed Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh VS State of Gujarat...
Mohmed Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh VS State of Gujarat - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 880 : In Gunwantlal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194, the Supreme Court held that a person cannot be charged with an offence under the Arms Act unless it can be shown that he had knowledge that any prohibited item was present. The Court emphasized that possession under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 requires not just physical or constructive possession, but also the element of intention, consciousness, or knowledge. The Court further clarified that possession may be constructive, meaning having power and control over the firearm, but such control must be effective and accompanied by awareness. The case established that mere ownership or presence in a location where arms are found is insufficient to establish guilt without proof of actual, constructive, or conscious possession.Checking relevance for Superintendent And Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs, W. B. VS Anil Kumar Bhunja...
Superintendent And Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs, W. B. VS Anil Kumar Bhunja - 1979 0 Supreme(SC) 366 : In the legal documents, Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1973) 1 SCR 508 is cited by Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta as one of the precedents supporting the argument that the delivery of fire-arms to a mechanic for repairs, even temporarily, does not amount to ''''possession'''' under Section 29(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, if the original licensees remain in lawful possession and control. The case is referenced in the context of the principle that delivery of arms to an agent for a limited purpose (such as repair) does not constitute the kind of possession contemplated by Section 29(b), which requires more than temporary custody or agency. The citation appears in a discussion of whether the respondents'''' act of handing over arms to an unlicensed mechanic for repair at a non-licensed premises constituted ''''delivery into possession'''' under the Act.Checking relevance for State Of M. P. : State Of Punjab VS Ajit Singh...
Checking relevance for State of A. P. VS National Thermal Power Corporation LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Khemraj VS State Of M. P. ...
Khemraj VS State Of M. P. - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 461 : In the case of Gunwantlal v State of Madhya Pradesh, the appeal was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the court held that no objection could be taken regarding the competency of the appeal being filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. This was because the move was initiated by the Superintendent, Delhi Special Police Establishment, who requested the Secretary, Law Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, and the decision was taken by the State Government, as evidenced by a letter dated January 28, 1969, from the Under Secretary to the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh. The court further observed that the State Government has jurisdiction to direct the public prosecutor to present an appeal even in cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, and that this jurisdiction extends to all types of cases under the general expression ''''any case''''.Checking relevance for GWALIOR RATON SILK MANUFACTURING (WEAVING) Company LTD. VS State Of M. P. ...
Checking relevance for STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS LAFARGE DEALERS ASSOCIATION...
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS LAFARGE DEALERS ASSOCIATION - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 729 : In Gunwantlal v State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that the bifurcation of Madhya Pradesh into the successor States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, did not convert inter-State sales between the two successor States into intra-State sales. The movement of goods between the two successor States, even without transfer of title to consignor or consignee, constitutes inter-State trade under Article 286 of the Constitution. Consequently, such transactions remain subject to the laws applicable to inter-State sales, and the exemption or deferment of sales tax under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, continues to apply to industrial units in either successor State, provided the conditions for such benefit are met. The court emphasized that the Reorganisation Act''''s provisions, particularly Sections 78, 79, 80, 85, and 86, give primacy to facilitating the application of laws to successor States, and authorities must interpret laws with substance and purpose, not by form or technicality. The appeals were partly allowed on this basis.Checking relevance for Cherive Munaswamy VS State Rep by P. P. ...
Cherive Munaswamy VS State Rep by P. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 477 : The case of Gunwantlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 1756, is cited in the legal document as one of the precedents relied upon by the petitioner in a Criminal Revision Case. The document references this case in a list of judgments that support the argument for modifying the sentence imposed, particularly in the context of sentencing discretion under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the principles of justice and mitigation of punishment. The citation appears in the context of a discussion on the power of the court to award a lesser punishment than the minimum prescribed under the law, especially when considering the accused''''s dependents and the ends of justice. While the document does not provide the full judgment or detailed facts of Gunwantlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, it confirms the existence and relevance of the case as a precedent in the matter before the court.
