Madhya Pradesh Court February 1958 Judgments
Gauri Shankar Vs. Firm Dulichand Laxmi Narayan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP188
ORDERP.K. Tare, J.1. This revision, purporting to be under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been filed by the judgment-debtor and is directed against the order, of the Additional District Judge, Umaria, District Shahdol dated 2-7-1957, holding that the execution of the decree, transferred by the Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur to that Court under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, without complying with the procedure laid down by Order 21, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, could proceed and that it was not necessary to return the transfer certificate to the transferor Court.2. Although the learned counsel for the decree-holder did not specifically raise the question relating to the tenability of a revision, I, during the course of the arguments pointedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the memo was termed as a revision. The objections, raised in the executing court, relating to the tenability of the execution and the jurisdiction of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Milan and anr. Vs. Bansilal Tejsingh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP203
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. This case was first before one of us (Tare, J.) who referred the case to a Division Bench, but in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mahadeo Raoji v. Anant Ganesh, AIR 1957 Bom 147 (PB) (A), I considered it expedient to refer the case to a Full Bench. The point involved in the case has had a long history and it is proper to decide it finally.2. The Tacts of the case appear sufficiently from the order of reference and need not be restated. In Wasudeo Bamchandra Patil v. Nihalchand Chandanmal, 1942 Nag LJ 34 (B), Greenfield, Revenue Adviser held that orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 13 of the Relief of Indebtedness Act were appealable and revisable and that the Deputy Commissioner acted as a Revenue Officer and not as a persona designata.In Ishwari Prasad v. Shankarlal, 1942 Nag LJ 420 (C), the same Revenue Adviser held that an order of the Deputy Commissioner granting p. certificate under Section 13 (3) of the Act was not appea...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhayyalal Shivasahay Sharma Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP211; [1958]9STC503(MP)
ORDERM. Hidayatullah C.J. and B.K. Choudhury J. 1. This petition is by one Kanhayya-lal, who is carrying on business as a grain merchant in the name and style of Kanhayyalal Hariprasad. He registered himself as a dealer under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, on 18-8-1949. The petition arises out of assessment proceedings coupled with proceedings to, impose a penalty for a period from 29-1-1949 to 18-8-1949. 2. It appears that a notice in Form No. V| was issued to the petitioner by the Department asking for returns, but returns were not submitted. The Department, therefore, decided to takes action against him and started proceedings under Section 24(1)(a), as also under Section 1(5) of the 8ale' Tax Act, after taking the assent of the Commissioner of sales Tax, because a notice served on the assessee to produce his documents was not obeyed. An ex parte order of assessment was passed against him on 25-41-1952 assessing him Rs. 771-2-0 as sales tax for the above period. A penalty ...
Tag this Judgment!Bimla Bai Vs. Shankerlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP8
T.P. Naik, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that her marriage with defendant-respondent Shankarlal was null and void has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The marriage is being sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud. The trial Court found the allegations proved and decreed her suit. The lower appellate Court however found that there was no misrepresentation amounting to fraud as alleged which could warrant the setting aside of the marriage in question. 2. The facts which are not in dispute may shortly be stated as follows : The plaintiff Bimla Devi and the defendant Shankarlal went through a ceremony of marriage according to Hindu rites at Jabalpur on 28-2-1952. The plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of one Munnalal Dube, a Kanvakubja Brahmin, while the defendant Shankarlal is the illegitimate son of the defendant-respondent Kundanlal, also a Kanyakubja Brahmin, but born of an adulterous intercourse with a Kurmi woman defend...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Ramkrishan Hazarilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP7; 1959CriLJ46
H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. In this State appeal directed against the acquittal under Section 247 Criminal Procedure Code of a person charged under Section 33 (a) of the Madhya Bharat Excise Act (Madak Draya Vidhan 2009 Sm) there are two questions -- first whether a report by the Excise Sub-Inspector under the Act is a complaint for the purposes of Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code and second whether in the circumstances of the present case the order of acquittal under Section 247 was proper, even if the Excise Officer's report is a complaint. 2. There is already a decision of this Court which, however, has not been reported but has been indexed in State v. Madia AIR 1955 NUC (Madh-B) 3785 (A), where it was held that a report by the Sub-Inspector of Excise under Section 10 of M. B. Ex. Act of 2006 Sm. is in the eye of law a police report and not a complaint. This prosecution is under Section 33 fa) of the Act 14 of 1952 (M. B. Madak Draya Vidhan 2009 Sm) started on the report of a co...
Tag this Judgment!Muti Ahmed Jafari Vs. Virendra Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP214
1. This is an appeal from a judgment passed by the Election Tribunal, Ujjain, on 25-11-1957, in Election Petition No. 196 of 1957. 2. The matter arises out of, the last elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The appellant was a candidate for electionfrom the Khachraud constituency, and the fourrespondents were also candidates. Of these, the first respondent Shri Virendra Singh son of Thakur Parbatsingh was elected, and the present appellant filed an election petition challenging the election. Along with his election petition the appellant enclosed a Government Treasury receipt, as required by Section 17 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter the Act). Before the Election Commission the question had arisen whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine because the receipt showed that the deposit was made not in the name of the Secretary to the Election Commission, as required by Section 17 of the Act, but in the name of the Secretary to t...
Tag this Judgment!Chhadamilal Malthuram Puri Vs. Sailani Puri and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP11
P.K. Tare, J. 1. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed by both the courts below. This judgment shall also govern the decision of the second appeal No. 222 of 1954 (Mst. Betibai and Ors. v.Sailana Puri and Anr.). The plaintiffs in both the cases were co-sharers, while the first respondent Sailanipuri in both the cases was the lambardar of the patti, in which the plaintiffs held the share. The land revenue payable by the plaintiff Chhadamilal was Rs. 211/4/-.The plaintiff's suit was for setting aside the sale on the ground, that the revenue sale had been brought about by the first respondent fraudulently, in collusion with the second respondent Kalloopuri, who is his nephew. Regarding the fraud, the pleas raised were to the effect that although the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 211/4/- as the land revenue due from him to the lambardar Sailanipuri, as also an additional amount of Rs. 158-6-0 in advance, as the lambardar was in need of money, the latter allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Gopikishan Munnalal Vs. Krishnadas Laxminarayan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1960MP5
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This is a petition for revision submitted by the petitioner Gopikishan Munnalal who was a witness in Civil Suit No. 505 of 1954 of the Civil Judge's Court at Mhow. The petition is directed against the order passed by the trial Court for recovery of the amount of his personal bond given by him for his appearance on 24-9-1957.2. Facts material for the consideration of the legality and propriety of the order are as follows:Petitioner is a Railway servant and was cited as a witness by the defendant Ramnarayan and summons was issued on his home address in Rajagali Mhow for appearance on 20-8-1957. The summons was served but the witness failed to attend. No diet charges however were tendered to the witness as required under Order 16 Rule 3 C. P. C. The Court, therefore, in ignorance of the fact that he was a Railway Servant directed issue of Muchalka-warrant for appearance on 24-9-1957. The petitioner gave a personal bond in pursuance of the warrant and actually app...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gopal Amarchand Mahajan Vs. Dhannalal Pomaduji Kahar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP201
P.V. Dixit, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether if in execution of a mortgage decree the mortgagor-judgment-debtor effects a private alienation of the mortgaged property with the consent of the Court and of the mortgagee decree-holder and deposits in Court the amount obtained by means of private alienation for the satisfaction of the mortgage-decree, the amount so realised and deposited in Court is liable to rateable distribution between the holders of decrees for the payment of money against the judgment-debtor. In this case, one Mukund held a mortgage-decree against Dhannalal.When the mortgaged property was about to be sold in execution of a decree, Dhannalal sold the property against which the decree was passed by private alienation with the consent of the Court and of the mortgagee decree-holder and deposited Rs. 675/-, as the amount obtained by this sale, for payment to the mortgagee decree-holder. The petitioner Ramgopal, and one o...
Tag this Judgment!Seetaram and ors. Vs. Smt. Ramabai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP221
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioners, who are landlords seek to get quashed an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sagar, invested with appellate powers, made on 26-11-1956.2. The petitioners own a house, which has been given on tenancy to the first respondent Shrimati Rambai and for which she is paying Rs. 5/- per month as rent. The landlords applied to the Rent Controller for permission to serve a notice terminating the lease, on the first respondent, on three grounds, viz., (a) that she was a habitual defaulter in paying rent, (b) that the premises were old and dilapidated and needed repair and re-construction, and (c) that the tenant had sublet the house to other persons without the petitioner's written permission to do so.3. The Rent Controller did not accept the first two contentions but granted permission on the third ground. He found that the tenant had inducted into the house five persons, of whom at least three we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »