Madhya Pradesh Court March 1957 Judgments
Udebhan Rajaram Vs. Vikram Ganu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP175
Chaturvedi, J.1. Vikram and Lahanu were real brothers, residing separately. Lahanu died, leaving his daughter Mst. Radha, who came in possession of Khasra No. 13/1, area 1.94 acres of mouza Khedi Pandewar, Tahsil Sausar, District Chhindwara. On 2nd April 1948 Mst. Radha sold the said field to Udebhan (appellant) for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-.The plaintiff Vikram, who is now dead and whose legal representatives are three respondents before me, challenged the alienation saying that the family was governed by the Benaras School of Hindu Law and Mst. Radha was the limited owner and could not effect the permanent alienation of the field in suit and that there was no legal necessity for effecting such a transfer.He, therefore, filed the suit for possession of khasra No. 13/1. The defendant (appellant) contended that the family of Mst. Radha belonged to the Maharashtrian Teli community and that they migrated from Berar; hence they were governed by the Bombay School of Mitakshara Law. He also said ...
Tag this Judgment!Bantasingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP193
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the legality of Rule 49-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940.2. The petitioner, Sardar Bantasingh, is a transport operator and carries on business in partnership, mainly at Jabalpur and Raipur, in the name and style of Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service and Jabalpur Development Transport Co., Jabalpur. The Raipur Transport Co. (Private), Ltd., Raipur, which also carries On the same business and had made an application to be joined as a respondent, was allowed to anpear as an intervener and was heard. The respondents are (i) The State of Madhya Pradesh, (ii) The State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur, and (iii) and (iv). The Regional Transport Authorities at Jabalpur and Raipur. The return has, however, been filed by the State Government alone, as It is mainly concerned with the dispute.3. Rule 49-A of the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules 1940, was made by the St...
Tag this Judgment!Mulam Chand Chhoteylall Modi Vs. Kanchhendilall Bhaiyalal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP304
1. This is plaintiff's appeal from the decree in civil suit No. 5-A of 1948 of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Sagar, dismissing his claim for partition.2. The following pedigree discloses the relationship between the parties. BALLE (d. before 1888) ___________________________________________|________________________________ | | | | | Mulchand Sukkelal Nanhelal Ramkishan Bhaiyalal (d. 1891) (d. 17-4-1915) (d. after 1888) (d. 1906) (d. 31-1-1946) | | | | _______|__________ ___________|__________ Damrulal | | | | | | _________________|________Tantilal Manmohan Sandhani Ranjit Babulal | | Kanchhedilal Chhotelal (deft. 1) (d. 1932) _____________________________________________|______ | | | | | Mulamchand Komalchand Shikharchand Prakashchand Subhashchand (Plaintiff) (deft. 2) (deft. 3) (deft. 4) (deft. 5)It was not disputed in the pleadings that Balle and his sons formed a joint Hindu family from which Nanhulal separated in 1888 A.D., Tantilal Manmohan and Sandhani, in 1908 A....
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Sitaram Dayaram Kachhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP99; 1958CriLJ522
Dixit, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the First Class Magistrate of Khargone acquitting the respondent Sitaram of a charge under Section 380, I. P. C. 2. It was alleged by the prosecution that on the night of 17th January 1956, at about 9 p.m., a theft was committed at the residence of Sukmabai and Rs. 961-4-0 were stolen. The prosecution sought to prove the guilt of the accused mainly by the evidence of Sukmabai and by the evidence of the recovery of Rs. 965 from the possession of the accused. The learned trial Magistrate disbelieved the statement of Sukmabai that on 17th January 1956, she was in possession of Rs. 961-4-0 and that this amount had been stolen. The trial Magistrate also held that there was no evidence to show that the amount recovered from the possession of the accused was the one which had been stolen from the house of Sukmabai. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State, admitted that there was no evidence to show that Rs. 965 recovered from ...
Tag this Judgment!Nageshwar Vs. Chandmal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP134
ORDERDixit, J.1. The facts of this revision-petition are that the plaintiff-applicant instituted a suit against Chandmal, Bhagwantibai and Gendalal for a declaration that a money decree for Rs. 2.700 which Chandmal had obtained against Bhagwantibai in Civil Suit No. 4/2003 from the Court of District Sub-Judge, Ujjain, was collusive and not binding on the plaintiff and that the decree be declared null and void and be also set aside. The plaintiff sued as a reversioner and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 10 only on the plaint.On an objection being taken with regard to sufficiency of court-fee, the trial Court held that the Plaintiff should have paid ad valorem court-fee on the valuation of the decree sought to be set aside. The order of the trial Court was upheld by Khan J. of Madhya Bharat High Court in Civil Revn. No. 136 of 1949 (A). When the case went back to the lower Court, the plaintiff was directed to pay up the deficient court-fee within a certain time. The plaintiff then made an applic...
Tag this Judgment!Mulla Irshad Ali Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR454(MP)
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. - This is an application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for calling upon the Income-tax Department to state a case.The facts of the case are as follows : The applicant was assessed under section 25(3) of the Bhopal Income-tax Act of 1936 (VIII of 1936) on a total income of Rs. 2,363 by an order dated July 20, 1946. After the Indian Income-tax Act was applied to Bhopal, the case was reopened under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, inasmuch as it was found that the applicant had encashed 57 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each on January 16, 1946. A notice was issued to him on March 28, 1951, under section 40 of the Bhopal Income-tax Act, 1936, but in order sheet section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act was mentioned and Forms I.T. 90 and 11 were ordered to be used.When the applicant filed his return it was not accepted and notices under section 23(2) and 22(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act were ordered to be issued. The case went on and the...
Tag this Judgment!Harakchand Vs. Karodimal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP5
ORDERDixit, J.1. This revision-petition arises out of a suit filed by the non-applicant Karodimal for the ejectment of the petitioner from a house on the ground that the plaintiff needed the premises for his own residence. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed issues as regards the genuine requirement of the plaintiff and the date of the commencement of the tenancy. The plaintiff had previously filed a suit for ejectment on the ground that he needed the premises for own use. In that suit, the trial Court found the genuine necessity of the plaintiff established but rejected the plaintiff's claim for ejectment on the other grounds.Relying on the finding in the previous suit on the question of the genuine requirement in respect of the house, the plaintiff made an application to the lower Court that as the aforesaid finding in the previous suit would be binding on the parties, therefore, issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 framed in the case covering the same points be deleted. This pr...
Tag this Judgment!Hitkarini Sabha Vs. Corporation of the City of Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP339
ORDER1. This is an application for revision against an order made by Shri R. D. Doongaji. Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 32 of 1956 on 13-12-1956.2. The facts of the case are simple. Land was acquired by the Collector, and two claimants for the compensation money appeared before the Collector. One is the present applicant, the Hitkarini Sabha, a registered body running some educational institutions at Jabalpur, and the other is the non-applicant, the Corporation of the City of Jabalpur. The Collector assessed the compensation and apportion ed between the Sabha and the Corporation, awarding to the former a sum of Rs. 2,34,739/-. On the day the award was announced, both the parties were present through their representatives and vouchers for payment to the Sabha and the Corporation Were drawn up to he handed over to them. The Corporation did not accent the payment, their agent informing the Collector that instructions had to be obtained. The...
Tag this Judgment!Lilabai Vs. Chandanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP24; 1958CriLJ48
ORDERNevaskar, J.1. This is a report made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge. Indore under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for revising the order passed by the First Class Magistrate, Mhow under Section 100 of the Criminal P. C. 2. Complainant Chandulal lodged a complaint before the First Class Magistrate, Mhow against one Harishchandra in respect of an offence under Section 366, I. P. C., alleging that the latter had Kidnapped his daughter Lila aged about 17 years with the object of committing illicit intercourse with her. In the course of that proceeding he applied for issue of a search-warrant and for delivery of the custody of his daughter Lilabai to him. The grounds alleged in the application were that in case his daughter is allowed to live with the accused that would 'affect her reputation and her statement, was going to be of some importance in the case'. The Magistrate called upon the accused to reply to this application. On 7-7-1956 complainant filed another a...
Tag this Judgment!Dongarsingh Vs. Krishan Kant Vyas and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP162; 1957CriLJ1143
ORDERNewaskar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 417 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed in favour of opponents Krishankant Vyas and Chandulal Shah by the Sessions Judge Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1956.2. The opponents were respectively the Editor and Printer and Publisher of the daily newspaper 'Nai Dunia' at the material time. Theease, our of which the present proceeding arose,was launched on the basis of a complaint filed bythe petitioner Dongarsingh of Makadavan againstthe opponents and 011.3 Shivshankar Raol in respect of certain defamatory matter which waspublished in the issues of 'Nai Dunia' dated 27thand 28th of July 1050. . ' .Complaint of the petitioner was that the Impugned publication related to him and that the same was highly defamatory and was calculated to harm his reputation and lower his prestige. Warrants were issued against all the three under Section 500, I. P. C., as a result of this complaint....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »