Madhya Pradesh Court December 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohammad HusaIn Ramjan HusaIn Vs. Chairman, Mandi Committee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP8
A.H. Khan, J. 1. The plaintiff brought a suit, against the Mandi Committee Gulabganj, Bhilsa, alleging that on his field (the Survey numbers of which are 133 and 135/3), and the area of which is 21 Bighas 16 Bishwas) the Mandi Committee had made an encroachment and that it wanted to establish a bullock-cart part there. With this end in view, the Mandi Committee had had the grass standing in the field cut. In the written statement the Mandi Committee stated that proceedings for the acquisition of the land were pending and while denying that they dispossessed the plaintiff of the land, it was admitted that they had got 2 or 3 Bighas of the ground cleared of the grass.The suit is thus in respect of a trespass that the defendant has committed and the plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction against the Mandi Committee. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the land in dispute belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendant's encroachment was not lawful. The trial court also issued...
Mt. Gyaso W/O Barelal Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP7; 1957CriLJ455
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. The facts leading to this revision are that the applicant applied to the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior, for issuing a search warrant under Section 100 of the Cr. P. C., alleging that his daughter was sold by her husband for illicit purpose in Kailaras District Morena, and that she was being wrongfully detained there. The learned Additional District Magistrate, rejected the application on the sole ground that Kailaras was not within his jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this order the applicant filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior but it was also dismissed. Now he has filed this revision.2. The trial Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether having regard to the facts of the case a search warrant should be issued or not? He has merely dismissed the application on the preliminary ground that he has no jurisdiction. But I am afraid that in holding this, the learned trial Court did not bear in mind the provisions of Sectio...
Khemchand Rajmal Vs. Chief Secretary, Madhya Bharat Govt. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP12; [1957]8STC313(MP)
Samvatsar, J. 1. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the same petitioner, Messrs. Khemchand Rajmal of Indore. Civil Misc. Case No. 4 of 1955 is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Sales Tax Officer Shri V. K. Koine, assessing the petitioner to sales tax for the assessment year 1952-53. Civil Misc. Case No. 5 of 1955 is directed against the order of the same officer assessing the petitioner to sales tax for the year 1953-54. As both these petitions involve same points for determination and are based on almost identical facts, they are being dealt with together. 2. The petitioner Messrs. Khemchand Rajmal is a dealer in cloth and has his establishment in Sitala-mata Bazaar at Indore. proceedings were initiated against him for assessment of sales tax lor the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 belore the Sales Tax Officer Shri Pancholia. Shri Paneholia had fixed these cases for hearing on 21-6-1954. On that day before the proc...
Natwarlal Gowardhandas Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP157
1. This is plaintiff-firm's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for damages.2. Manilal alias Manibhai (P. W. 4) booked 52 bags of tobacco on 11-7-1947 at Bhaili station on the Gaekwar Baroda State Railway for transport to Damoh on the Great Indian Peninsula Railway. The consignee was the plaintiff. It was not disputed before us that the consignment reached Pratapuagar on the Bombay-Baroda and Central India Railway without any damage and was despatched from that station on 12-7-1947 without delay. The consignment was placed at that station in wagon No. N. W. R. 37414 and travelled throughout in that wagon to Damoh. The wagon reached Ujjain on 19-7-1947, Bina on 9-8-1947 and Sagaron 12-8-1947.There was no remark about any damage in the summary books of these railway stations. When the consignment was unloaded at Damoh on 16-8-1947, it was noticed that 39 bags were completely damaged by rains and only the remaining 13 bags were in a good condition. The loss was estimated at Rs. 4,923...
Dayabhai Poonambhai and anr. Vs. Natwarlal Sombhai Talati and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP1
ORDERDixit, J.1. These two revision petitions submit for decision an interesting point as to the validity of a plaint in English in a suit instituted in a Civil Court located in the territory of the former Madhya Bharat. The facts are simple.Natwarlal filed a suit on 13th April, 1956, against Dayabhai, Chhotobhai and Purshottambhai in the Court of the District Judge, Indore, for accounts or a dissolved partnership. The plaint was in English. After the service of the summons, the defendants without filing any written statement raised an objection that as the language of the Court was Hindi and the plaint was in English, the plaintiff be directed to file the plaint in Hindi before calling upon the defendants to file their written statements.In reply, the plaintiff, while maintaining that the plaint in English was a valid one. filed a Hindi translation of the plaint. Thereupon the defendants raised further objections that as the plaint filed in English was invalid there was no suit at all...
Ramanlal Poonambhai Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax, M.B. Government
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP10; [1957]8STC305(MP)
Dixit, J. 1. In this reference under Section 13 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1930, made by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, of the former Madhya Bharat Government, the questions referred to for decision are :-- 1. 'Whether rebate under Section 8 (5) of the Act can be allowed for full one year, comprising of all the four quarters keeping in view assessment made under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act for any of the said quarters?' 2. 'Whether demand created under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act for any quarter can be modified under Section 8 (5) of the Act?' Messrs. Ramanlal Poonambhai who arc dealers in tobacco and licensed under the Sales Tax Act were required to file their returns of turnover quarterly. iN the year 1950-51, they failed to submit their return for the first quarter ending on 30th June, 1950: Thereupon under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act, the assessing authority determined the turnover of the firm for the said period to the best of his judgment and assessed the tax according...
Gordhandas Tekchand Sindhi and ors. Vs. Indore City Municipality
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP6; 1957CriLJ453; (1958)IILLJ734MP
ORDERDixit, J. 1. The Madhya Bharat Shops and Establishments Act, 1952, (Act No. 7 of 1952) contains a provision by which any one of the individual partners or members of a firm or an association which has committed an offence punishable under the Act and the rules thereunder may be made responsible for the offence. That provision is Section 53 (1) which is as follows:''53 (1): Where the owner of an establishment is a firm or other association of individuals, any one of the individual partners or members thereof, may be prosecuted and punished under this Act for any offence for which an employer in an establishment is punishable. Provided that the firm or association may give nolicc to the inspector that it has nominated one of its members who is resident in the state to be the employer for the purpose of this act and such individual shall so long as he is so resident be deemed to be the employer for the purpose of this Act, until further notice cancelling the nomination is received b...
Hirjibhai Lakhamsibhai Vs. Damodar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP49
ORDER1. This appeal is against an order passed by Deo J. in Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 160 of 1951 on 9th March 1953. The matter arises out of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the present appellant (now deceased and represented by his heirs) was the employer against whom the orders of the learned Commissioner and that of the learned Single Judge have been made.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent Damodar was working as the head mason in the construction of a godown which the employer was getting constructed to store grain in which he was doing business. Damodar was working as a mason and used to dress stones for use in the godown. While so working a chip of stone flew up and got embedded in his eye, which though treated resulted in the loss of the sight of that eye. Compensation was claimed on two accounts, viz. for permanent loss of the limb and for the expenses of treatment. A lump sum has been awarded by the learned Commissioner, and tha...
Bansidhar Narayanji Vs. E.B. Sukhia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP24
ORDERDixit, J. 1. This is a petition to Revise the decision of the Additional District Judge, Indore, reversing in appeal an order of the Additional City Civil Judge of Indore refusing to stay, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, a suit filed by the plaintiff applicant for recovery of damages on account of breach of contract. The learned Additional District Judge stayed the suit under Section 34, Arbitration Act, for a period of four months. 2. The undisputed facts are that the suit was filed on 26th April, 1952. On 23rd June 1952 Mr. Patel filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant praying that as the defendant resided outside the State, further time may be granted for filing his reply. This prayer was allowed by the trial Court fixing 26th August, 1952, as the date for the filing of defendant's reply. On this date the defendant non-applicant presented an application under Section 34, Arbitration Act, for the stay of the suit stating chat one of the terms of the contract be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›