{"id":111754,"date":"1971-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971"},"modified":"2018-08-17T05:48:25","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T00:18:25","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHYAMA CHARAN SHUKLA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1971\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nStates\tReorganisation\tAct,, 1956,  ss.  78,  91-\"Arrears\",\nmeaning- Amount due by way of tax need not be quantified.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent was, assessed to sales tax under the  Madhya\nPradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, for the period  October\n1,  1953  to  December\t26, 1958  in  respect  of  sales  of\nmanganese  ore\tincluding the sales from the  mines  in\t two\ndistricts  in  the erstwhile State of Madhya  Pradesh  which\nwere transferred to the State of Maharashtra on 1st November\n1956  under  the  States  Reorganisation  Act,\t1956.\t The\nrespondent challenged the order of assessment on the ground,\namong  others,\tthat  by  virtue of  s.\t 78  of\t the  States\nReorganisation\t Act,  1956,  the  State  of  M.P.  had\t  no\njurisdiction  to  recover the amount of tax  in\t respect  of\nsales made in the two districts after November 1, 1956.\t The\nHigh  Court,  without deciding the other points,  which\t bad\nbeen raised in the writ petition, quashed the assessment  by\nreferring  to s. 78 of the States Reorganisation Act  which,\ninter alia, provided : \"The right to recover arrears of\t any\ntax  or duty on property including arrears of  land  revenue\nshall belong to the successor State in which the property is\nsituated  and  the right to recover any other  tax  or\tduty\nshall  belong to the successor State, in  whose\t territories\nthe  place of assessment for that tax or duty is  included\".\nThe  High Court held that before the assessment\t proceedings\nwere  completed and the final amount due was determined,  it\ncould not be said that any particular amount was due against\nthe assessee and so long as there was. no determination\t and\nno  demand for payment of tax was raised the assessee  could\nnot be said to be in \"arrears\" of any tax within the meaning\nof s. 78.\nAllowing  the  appeal  and remanding the case  to  the\tHigh\nCourt,\nHELD : (1) The word \"arrears\" in section 78 must be held  to\nhave  been used in the sense of dues or what has become\t due\nby way of tax and that does not depend upon proceedings\t for\nquantification of the amount.  The word \"arrears\" cannot  be\ngiven a narrow meaning in the manner done by the High Court.\nIf  the view of the High Court is accepted, arrears  of\t tax\ncan  refer to only that amount of tax which has\t been  quan-\ntified\tafter  proper assessment.  This would  lead  to\t the\nresult\tthat  where  there has\tbeen  no  quantification  or\nassessment order, the position would be wholly uncertain and\nit  would  not\tbe  possible to say  which  State  would  be\nentitled  to realise those taxes or duty-, in  other  words,\nuntil the tax liability had been determined and\t quantified,\nthere  would  be  no  arrears of tax  and  s.  78  would  be\ninapplicable.  The word \"arrears\" should be given its proper\nmeaning as understood in the ordinary sense of the word.  It\nis a part of the general scheme of sales tax laws that taxes\nbecome\tdue  the moment a dealer makes either  purchases  or\nsales which are subject to tax and the obligation to pay tax\narises.\t  Although  the\t tax  liability\t which\tcomes\tinto\nexistence  cannot  be enforced till  the  quantification  is\neffected  by  assessment  proceedings,\tthe  liability\t for\npayment of tax is independent of the assessment. [865  F-866\nD]\n862\n(2)Section  78\tdeals with arrears and s.  83  deals  with\nrefund\tof taxes.  Both the sections indicate that when\t the\nquestion is of any tax or duty other than that on  property,\nthe  right has been conferred and the liability\t imposed  on\nthe  successor\tState  in whose\t territories  the  place  of\nassessment  of\tthat tax or duty is included.\tFurther\t the\namounts\t due by way of tax are not covered by the  residuary\nprovisions as mentioned in s. 91 of the Act. [865 B-D]\nKedarnath  Jute Mfg. co.  Ltd. v. C.I.T., Central  Calcutta,\n[1972] 1 S.C.R. 277 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2272  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 12,\t1967
\nof the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.  Petition No.\t 178
\nof 1966.\n<\/p>\n
I.   N. Shroff and R. P. Kapur, for the appellants.
\nM.   N. Phadke, U. N. Bachawat, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur,
\nfor the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGrover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a  judgment
\nof the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition filed by
\nthe  respondent\t challenging  certain  orders  relating\t  to
\nassessment of sales tax.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent held mineral concessions for extracting\tman-
\nganese\tore in respect of mining areas in the  districts  of
\nBalaghat,  Chhindwara, Bhandara and Nagpur in the  erstwhile
\nState  of Madhya Pradesh i.e. before the  reorganisation  of
\nthe  State.   Under S. 4 of the Central\t Provinces  &  Berar
\nSales  Tax  Act 1947, hereinafter called the “Act  of  1947”
\nwhich was then applicable a dealer was liable to pay tax  on
\nall  the  sales\t if the gross turnover\texceeded  the  limit
\nspecified in S. 4 (5) of the Act of 1947 and he was required
\nunder  S.  8  to get himself registered as  a  dealer.\t The
\nmaterial  period,  in the present case, is from\t October  1,
\n1953  to December 26, 1958.  This may be split up  into\t two
\nperiods; (1) October 1, 1953 to October 31, 19S6 (till that
\ndate Nagpur and Bhandara districts formed part of the  State
\nof Madhya Pradesh) and (2) November 1, 1956 to December\t 26,
\n1958 (from November 1, 1956 the aforesaid two districts came
\nto be included in the new, State of Maharashtra).  According
\nto the appellant the respondent effected sales of  manganese
\nore from  the mines during the aforesaid  periods  without
\nregistering  himself as a dealer in spite of the  fact\tthat
\nthe  turnover  exceeded the prescribed limit.  A  number  of
\nnotices\t were  issued by the Sales Tax\tOfficer,  Chhindwara
\ncalling upon the respondent to get himself registered and to
\nshow cause why he should not be assessed under S. 1 1 (5) of
\nthe
\n863<\/span>
\nAct  of\t 1947  which  was  subsequently\t ‘repealed  and\t was
\nreplaced  by  the Madhya Pradesh General  Sales\t Tax,  1958,
\nhereinafter  called the- “Act of 1958”.\t Towards the end  at
\nthe-  year 1958 the- respondent applied for registration  to
\nthe   Sales’Tax\t  Officer,  Chhindwara\t Circle\t  exercising
\njurisdiction over the Balaghat and Chhindwara districts.  On
\nDecember 27, 1958 a registration certificate was granted  to
\nhim.   Thereafter the Sales Tax Officer issued a  notice  to
\nthe respondent under ss. 17, 18 & 19 of the Act of 1958.  He
\nproceeded to assess the respondent for the period October 1,
\n1953 to December 26, 1958.  The amount assessed came to\t Rs.
\n31,580.42  and\ta  penalty of Rs. 5,000\t was  imposed.\t The
\nrespondent  filed  an  appeal  to  the\tAppellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner  of Sales Tax.  As he did not deposit the\tpast
\ndues  of the tax and the penalty demanded of him the  appeal
\nwas  not admitted in view of s. 38(3) of the Act of 1958  or
\ns.  22\tof  the\t Act  of 1947.\t On  January  23,  1961\t the
\nrespondent  ‘preferred\tan appeal to the  Board\t of  Revenue
\nwithout\t depositing  the  amount  of  tax  required  to\t  be
\ndeposited under the law.  That appeal was also not admitted.
\nOn March 28, 1966 the respondent filed a petition under Art.
\n226 of the Constitution challenging the order of  assessment
\ndated April 23, 1960 passed by the Sales tax Officer as also
\nthe  orders  of\t the appellate\tauthorities.   In  the\twrit
\npetition  a number’ of points were raised by the  respondent
\nsome  of  which may be noticed. (1) The\t Sales\ttax  Officer
\nBalaghat  or  Chhindwara had no jurisdiction to\t assess\t the
\nwrit petitioner to tax in respect of sales which took  place
\nfrom the districts of Bhandara and Nagpur which were part of
\nthe  State  of\tMaharashtra.  As  the  order  of  assessment
\nincluded sales of ore from those districts also it was void.
\n(2) The Sales tax Officer had no jurisdiction to include the
\nsales  in respect of manganese in the taxable turnover\twhen
\nthose sales were for export outside India (3) The Sales\t tax
\nOfficer had no power to assess the writ petitioner under  s.
\n18(6)  of the Act of 1958 when the liability arose  for\t the
\nperiod prior to April 1, 1959 when the provisions of the Act
\nof 1947 were in force. (4) That the assessments were  barred
\nby time. (5) By virtue of s. 78 of the States Reorganisation
\nAct 1956, the State of Madhya Pradesh had no jurisdiction to
\nrecover\t the  amount  of tax in respect of  sales  prior  to
\nNovember  1, 1956 which had been completed at  Nagpur  which
\nwas  included in the State of Maharashtra with\teffect\tfrom
\nNovember   1,\t1956  and  (6)\t the   Appellate   Assistant
\nCommissioner  and the Board of Revenue were in error in\t not
\nentertaining  the appeals on the ground that the  amount  of
\ntax assessed had not been deposited.\n<\/p>\n
The  State contested the writ petition and controverted\t the
\npoints\traised\ttherein\t by the writ  petitioner.   It\talso
\nraised\tcertain objections and contentions.  The High  Court
\nheld that the
\n864<\/span>
\nnotices\t that were issued by the sales tax authorities\twere
\nwithin\tlimitation.  But without deciding the  other  points
\nwhich  had been raised in the writ petition the\t High  Court
\ndisposed  of the whole matter by referring to S. 78  of\t the
\nStates\tReorganisation\tAct 1956.  That section\t is  in\t the
\nfollowing terms :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  right to recover arrears of any  tax  or
\n\t      duty  on property, including arrears  of\tland
\n\t      revenue shall belong to the successor State in
\n\t      which  the property is situated and the  right
\n\t      to  recover arrears of any other tax  or\tduty
\n\t      shall  belong to the successor State in  whose
\n\t      territories  the place of assessment  of\tthat
\n\t      tax or duty is included”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was urged on behalf of the assessee before the High Court
\nthat  after  the  reorganisation of States,  the  Sales\t tax
\nOfficer,  Balaghat, had no jurisdiction to assess the  sales
\ntax in respect of the sales from the mines in the Nagpur and
\nBhandara districts which no longer formed part of the  State
\nof Madhya Pradesh and as no separate turnover was determined
\nfor  the  different  areas the order of\t assessment  in\t its
\nentirety  was liable to be quashed.  On behalf of the  State
\nthe argument raised was that the expression right to recover
\narrears\t of any tax or duty” covered not only tax which\t had
\nalready been assessed but also all those taxes which  became
\ndue  but  remained to be assessed.  This  argument  was\t not
\naccepted  by the High Court and was disposed of in the\tfol-
\nlowing manner
\n\t      “Before\tthe   assessment   proceedings\t are
\n\t      completed\t  and  the  final  amount   due\t  is
\n\t      determined   it  cannot  be  said\t  that\t any
\n\t      particular  amount of tax is due\tagainst\t the
\n\t      assessee.\t  So  long  as\tthere  is  no\tsuch
\n\t      determination and no demand for payment of the
\n\t      tax  is  raised, it cannot be  said  that\t the
\n\t      assessee is in arrears of any taxes.  This  is
\n\t      so even where the assessee is required to\t pay
\n\t      the  tax amount as per his  own  determination
\n\t      along with the returns submitted by him”.\n<\/p>\n
In  the opinion of the High Court under s. 78 the  place  of
\nassessment  of the tax must be the place which was  included
\nin  the territories of the successor State.  So long as\t the
\nassessee  was not registered as a dealer with  reference  to
\nany  particular place of business it could not be said\tthat
\nKatangjhiri  in Balaghat district was the place of  business
\nwith  respect to the ore extracted from the mines in  Nagpur
\nand Bhandara districts.\t Registration certificate granted to
\nthe assessee in 1958 after the reorganisation of the  States
\nin which the place of business was shown at Katanjhiri could
\nnot  be\t made  use  of as that\tcertificate  could  have  no
\nrelation  to  Nagpur and Bhandara districts  which  were  no
\nlonger
\n865<\/span>
\nwithin the State of Madhya Pradesh on that date.   Therefore
\nthe  Sales  tax Officer, Balaghat, had\tno  jurisdiction  to
\nassess\tthe:  tax with respect to sales\t effected  from\t the
\nmines in Nagpur and Bhandara districts.\t As the assessment
\norder was a composite order it was liable to be quashed as a
\nwhole.\n<\/p>\n
Part  VII of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 relates\t to-
\napportionment  of assets and liabilities of certain  Part  A
\nand-Part B States.  Section 76 deals with land and goods, s.
\n77 with treasury and bank balances and s. 78 with arrears of
\ntaxes.\tIt is unnecessary to refer to other sections in\t the
\nChapter\t except ss. 83 and 91.\tSection 83  provides,  inter
\nalia, that the liability of an existing State to refund\t any
\ntax or duty other than that on property…….. collected in
\nexcess\tshall  be the liability of the\tsuccessor  State  in
\nwhose  territories  the place of assessment of that  tax  or
\nduty  is included.  Section 91 is the  residuary  provision.
\nAccording to it the burden or benefit of assets and liabili-
\nties  of  an existing State not dealt within  the  foregoing
\nprovisions  of Part VII has to pass in the manner  indicated
\nin clauses (a) and (b).\t Thus so far as taxes are  concerned
\nss. 78 and 83 indicate that when the question is of any\t tax
\nor  duty  other\t than that on property the  right  has\tbeen
\nconferred  and the liability imposed, in case of refund,  on
\nthe  successor\tState  in whose\t territories  the  place  of
\nassessment of that tax or duty is included.  Part VII in the
\nStates\t Reorganisation\t Act  was  intended  to\t  effectuate
\napportionment of assets and liabilities between the existing
\nState  and  the\t successor State.   ‘.’Existing\t State”\t was
\ndefined\t by s. 2 (g) to mean a State specified in the  first
\nschedule to the Constitution at the commencement of the\t Act
\nof 1956.  A “successor State” was defined by s. 2(o) to mean
\nin  relation  to an existing State that State to  which\t the
\nwhole or any part of the territories of that existing  State
\nwas  transferred  by  the  provisions of  Part\tII.   It  is
\ndifficult to give a narrow meaning to the word “arrears”  in
\ns. 78 in the manner done by the High Court.  If’ the view of
\nthe High Court is to be accepted arrears of tax can refer to
\nonly  that amount of tax which has been quantified  after  a
\nproper assessment.  This would lead to the result that where
\nthere  has  been no quantification or assessment  order\t the
\nposition  would\t be  wholly uncertain and it  would  not  be
\npossible  to  say which State would be entitled\t to  realise
\nthose taxes or duties.\tIn other words, in the present\tcase
\nsince\tthe  tax  liability  had  not  been  determined\t  or
\nquantified  there would be no arrears of tax and s. 78\twill
\nbe  inapplicable.  In our judgment arrears should  be  given
\ntheir proper meaning as understood in the ordinary sense  of
\nthat  word.   According to the Webster’s  New  International
\nDictionary “arrears” means among other things “that which is
\nbehind in payment or which remains unpaid though due”.\tThe-\n<\/p>\n
866<\/span><\/p>\n
example\t given\tis of arrears of rent, wages or\t taxes.\t  In
\nStroud’s  Judicial  Dictionary, third edition, it  has\tbeen
\nstated that the word “arrears” presupposes a time fixed\t for
\npayment\t of a sum of money and the lapse of time  thereafter
\nwithout payment”.  It is a part of the general scheme of all
\nsales  tax  laws that taxes become due the moment  a  dealer
\nmakes  either  purchases  or  sales  which  are\t subject  to
\ntaxation and the obligation to pay the tax arises.  Although
\nthe  tax  liability  which comes into  existence  cannot  be
\nenforced  till the quantification is effected by  assessment
\nproceedings the liability for payment of tax is\t independent
\nof  the assessment : (See Kedarnath Jute Mfg.  Co.  Ltd.  v.
\nCommissioner  of Income<\/a> tax, Central Calcutta)(1).  We\thave
\nno doubt that the word “arrears” in respect of tax has\tbeen
\nused in the sense of dues or what has become ‘ due by way of
\ntax  and that does not depend on assessment  proceedings  or
\nquantification of the amount.  We do not consider that\tthe
\namounts\t due  by  way of tax are covered  by  the  residuary
\nprovisions i.e. S. 91 of the Act of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court  has disposed of the mater  mainly  on\t the
\ninterpretation of s. 78 of the Act of 1956 with which we are
\nunable to agree.  For these reasons the judgment of the High
\nCourt  is  set\taside and the matter is remanded  to  it  to
\nredecide  the  same  and while doing so all  the  material
\npoints\tthat  arise for determination will also have  to  be
\ndecided by it.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed accordingly but there will be no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.N.\t\t\t   Appeal allowed.\n(1) [1972] 1 S.C.R. 277.\n867<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971 PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SHYAMA CHARAN SHUKLA DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1971 BENCH: ACT: States Reorganisation Act,, 1956, ss. 78, 91-“Arrears”, meaning- Amount due by way of tax need not be quantified. HEADNOTE: The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-17T00:18:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-17T00:18:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971\"},\"wordCount\":2056,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-17T00:18:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-17T00:18:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971","datePublished":"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-17T00:18:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971"},"wordCount":2056,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-17T00:18:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-shyama-charan-shukla-on-22-september-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shyama Charan Shukla on 22 September, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}