Madhya Pradesh Court September 1957 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.
Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Election Tribunal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP168
ORDER1. This petition by one Shri Hari Vishnu Kamath is directed against an order passed by the Election Tribunal, Jabalpur, presided over by Shri M.V. Bhide, on 12-8-1957, in an election petition filed by the petitioner to question the election of Shri. Maganlal Bagdi, the second respondent in the case.2. The matter arises out of an interlocutory order by which the petitioner has been asked to supply better particulars which, according to the Tribunal, were not fully stated in the petition. An anticipatory order striking out those particulars held to be vague, has also been passed, if the order is not obeyed within the time fixed.3. The facts of the case are simple. The election petition was presented to question the election of the second respondent on the ground that corrupt practices were committed by the returned candidate or his election agent or other persons with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent, or that in any event the result of the election, in so ...
Seth Kalekhan Mahomed Hanif Bidi Merchant Vs. the Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP271; [1956]30ITR522(MP)
ORDER1. The order in this case will also govern M. C. C. No. 43 of 1955.2. These are two references made under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, in reply to the orders passed by this Court calling upon the Tribunal to state a case. Since the assessee is common and the facts of these two cases are very similar, it is convenient to dispose of them by a common order, as was done by the Appellate Tribunal when the appeal was initially before it. M. C. C. 42 of 1955, refers to the assessment year 1945-46, while M. C. C. 43 of 1955, refers to the assessment year 1947-48. Originally, the assessee was assessed by the Income-tax Officer on 24-6-1946 in the former case and on 10-1-1948 in the latter.It appears that the Income-tax Officer having found certain cash credits said to be on account of deposits made by other persons and the sale of gold issued a notice under Section 34 (1) (b) of the Act with the previous concurrence of the Commissioner. It w...
Seth Kelekhan Mahomed Hanif Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P. and B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: [1958]34ITR669(MP)
The order in this case also govern M.C.C. No. 43 of 1955.These are two reference made under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, in reply to the orders passed by this court calling upon the Tribunal to state a case. Since the assessee is common and the facts of these two cases are very similar, it is convenient to dispose of them by a common order, as was done by the Appellate Tribunal when the appeal was initially before it, M.C.C. No. 42 of 1955 refers to the assessee year 1945-46, while M.C.C. No. 43 of 1955 refers to the assessee year 1947-48. Originally, the assessee was assessed by the Income-tax Officer on June 24, 1946, in the former case and on January 10, 1948, in the latter. It appears that the Income-tax Officer having found certain cash credits said to be on account of deposits made by made other person and the sale of gold issued a notice under section 34(1)(b) of the Act with the previous concurrence of the Commissioner. It was in...
Union of India (Uoi) (Owning and Representing the Central and Western ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP425
1. This is a civil suit filed by the Union of India owning and representing the Central and Western Railway Administrations, New Delhi, against one Shri R.C. Jali, an inhabitant of Indore, and the Amalgamated Coal Fields Limited, a corporation with its head office at Parasia, tahsil and district Chhindwara. The plaint was originally filed at Chhindwara in the Court of Civil Judge, Second Class, empowered under Section 19 of the Central Provinces Courts Act.On an application made to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution, one of us (Choudhuri J.) withdrew the case for trial in the High Court on the ground that important questions as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution were involved. The case was also referred to a Division Bench, and it thus comes before us for final disposal. It may be pointed out that neither side led any evidence in the case, and the issues have been argued almost entirely as matters of law.2. The facts as disclo...
Gajadharlal S/O Tarachand and ors. Vs. Suganchand S/O Choudhary Jawaha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP184; 1958CriLJ897
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This reference by a Single Judge involves a question as to the legality of the appointment of more than one Sub-divisional Magistrate' in a sub-division in that part of Madhya Pradesh which was formerly Madhya Bharat.2. The circumstances leading to this reference are that on 17th February, 1949, the Madhya Bharat Government issued a notification (Notification No. 11 dated 17th February, 1949, published in the Madhya Bharat Government Gazette of 19th February 1949, at page 284) under Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as adapted in Madhya Bharat, appointing all Tehsildars a-. Magistrates of the Second Class and 'investing them with the powers of Sub-divisional Magistrates with jurisdiction over their respective Parganas' under Section 13 of the Code.On 12th May, 1954, the Government issued another notification (Notification No. 107 (5) dated 12th May, 1954, published in the Madhya Bharat Government Gazette dated 20th May, 1954 at page 24) under 'Section 13 (i), ...
Kanhaiyalal Jagannath Vs. Vilayatkhan Jamdarkhan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP63
ORDERNewaskar, J. 1. Only question raised in this revision petition is whether the Madhya Bharat Money Lenders Act repeals Jhabua State Agriculturists Relief Act? 2. The trial Court held that the Madhya Bharat Act aforesaid does not repeal the Jhabua Act. The learned trial Judge took into consideration two circumstances. Firstly, it is said, that in the repealing clause in the Madhya Bharat Act there is direct reference to Money Lenders Act Gwalior State, Samvat 2003, Indore Money Lenders Act, No. V of 1938 and Sahukari Sambandhi Vidhan Dewas Junior, 1943, but no direct reference to the aforesaid Jhabua Act and secondly it is said that the preamble of the Madhya Bharat Act indicates that the Act was designed to control and regulate the transactions of money lending in Madhya Bharat whereas the preamble to the Jhabua Act indicates that it was designed to prevent money-lenders from taking undue advantage of the illiterate and ignorant condition of the agricultural, class and that as ther...
Piyarji Mangilalji Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP234; 1958CriLJ1040
ORDERAbdul Hakim Khan, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Guna, recommending that the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Guna, in Case No. 17 of 1954 Criminal Miscellaneous, passed on 28-4-1956, be quashed.2. The facts of the case are that the Additional District Magistrate, Guna, had given in Superdagi to one Piyarji some buffaloes. When asked to produce them for thepurpose of auction, the Superdgidar avoided service, but later on when served submitted that the buffaloes had died. The Magistrate disbelieved the story of the Superdgidar and asked the Police to charge-sheet the Superdgidar under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. Against this order, a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, who has referred this case to High Court.3. It appears from the record that the Magistrate did not at all make an enquiry as to whether the buffaloes were really dead or not. And it is obvious that without an enquiry be was not justified in holding that they were dead and in...
Dr. Dwarkaprasad and anr. Vs. Mt. Safurabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP307
ORDER1. It appears that during the course of First Appeal No. 75 of 1943 one Lalluram died. An application (No. 612 of 1953) was filed on 20-3-1953 for bringing his legal representatives on record. Notice of the application was sent to the proposed legal representatives as well as to the proposed guardian of one of the legal representatives, but through oversight the application was not placed before the Court for formal orders for substitution. Shri M. Adhikari, however, appeared for the proposed legal representatives in the appeal, and it was heard without making a formal order for substitution. As a result the decree which was eventually passed showed the name of Lalluram and not those of his legal representatives.The counsel who applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court took the names of the parties from those contained in the decree and showed once again the name of Lalluram. He, however, made an application, which is before us, for amending the memorandum of appeal by show...
Passarilal Mannoolal Vs. Mst. Chhuttanbai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP417
B.K. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal against a decision of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, holding that the contract in the suit is champertous and cannot be specifically enforced; but at the same time it granted a decree for Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has come in second appeal and desires specific performance of the contract and prays for the restoration of the trial Court's decree.2. The facts of the case are: Lala Ram Dube (respondent No.3) is the father, respondent No. 1 Smt. Chhuttanbai is his daughter and respondent No. 2 Moolchand is his son. There were disputes between father and son about the property which according to the former was self-acquired, and according to the latter was ancestral. The wife of Moolchand (respondent No. 2) also filed a suit against her father-in-law for the return of her ornaments.The son had no money to file a suit for partition; so he approached the plaintiff for some money. The plaintiff agr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›