Madhya Pradesh Court March 1958 Judgments
Sewaram Udaji Vs. Munna Moti and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP5
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J. 1. The facts of this revision petition are that the plaintiff-applicant instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Ujjain for the recovery of Rs. 185/- from the non-applicants. After the filing of the written-statements by the defendants and on perusing them, the learned trial Judge thought it necessary to examine the plaintiff before framing issues in the suit. The plaintiff was therefore, directed to be present in the Court on 13-8-1952. On this date, the plaintiff remained absent. His counsel was, however, present. Thereupon, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On 26-8-1952, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. for restoration of the suit on the ground that as he was ill on 13-8-1952 he could not appear in the Court.This application was rejected by the trial Judge, who took the view that the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit was not under Order 9, Rule 8, C. P. C. The plaintiff then filed an appeal before th...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Mohan S/O Laxman Prasad Vs. Rajaram Vaishya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP346; 1958CriLJ1318
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is a reference by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, recommending that the order of the S. D. M. Bhind dated 21-11-1956 dropping proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. should be set aside. The question for consideration is whether this Court in revision is competent to consider whether there was sufficient material satisfying the Magistrate that there was no more likelihood of the breach of the peace.2. The facts of the case are simple. Between the parties mentioned in the proceedings there was some dispute in regard to a piece of open land between their houses each claiming as usual that the land belonged to it and was in its possession. The police submitted a report for action under Section 145 Cr. P. C. on 14-9-1955. The Magistrate started proceedings and also attached the land pending disposal. After about 14 months the Magistrate passed an order that there was no more likelihood of a breach of the peace and, therefore, the proceedings should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Umar Vs. Amir Mohammad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP423
P.K. Tare, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, whose suit for pre-emption according to Mohammedan law was dismissed by both the courts below.2. One Gulam Mohammad sold his house to the defendant-respondent Amir Mohammad by a registered sale deed dated 13-5-1952, for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1500/-. The plaintiffsrelationship with the vendor is as follows: SHEIKH MAGTUMBUX ___________________|_______________________ | | Hayat Mohammad=Umraobi Jan Mohammad ________|____________ | | | Gulam Mohammad Mohammad Mst. Sofiabi (Vendor)Umar (Plaintiff)The house originally belonged to Sheikh Magtumbux. It was partitioned in a family partition between Jan Mohammad, Umraobi, Mohammad Umar and Mst. Sofiabi. The plaintiff as a participator in the appendages and as the owner of the adjoining portion of the house (which is divided by a common wall) claimed the right of pre-emption. It was also alleged that the consideration was fictitious and inflated with a view to defea...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulsattar Vs. Ismail and ors., Heirs of Abdulrehman (Deceased)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP373
V.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiff Abdul Sattar against his brother Abdul Rehman and the latter's son Ismail for specific performance ofagreement dated 23-11-1931 entered into between Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rehman the latter acting as' she guardian of his minor son Ismail. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and plaintiff now appeals, 2. Plaintiff came to Court with the allegationsthat he owned a house in Moholla Rangrcjoki Sadak in the town of Ratlam. Some time in 1931, the plaintiff got into financial difficulties. He became indebted to the people in the Bazar and was placed in a situation which compelled him to sell his house. With a view to save the house for the family the plaintiff decided to effect a sale of the house in the name of his minor nephew Ismail at the suggestion of hisbrother Abdul Rchman who induced him to believe in case the house were sold in the name of Is-mail for a consideration of Rs. 2.051/- by executing a duly re...
Tag this Judgment!Chakrapani Jagannath Prasad Shukla Vs. Chandoo Sahadeo Satnami and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP81
ORDER1. This appeal is by Chakrapani Shukla against an order of the Election Tribunal, Raipur, in Election Petition No. 87 of 1957, decided on 19-12-1957. By this order the Election Tribunal has declared the election of the present appellant void for the reason that one of the contesting candidates, by name Chandoo son of Sahadev, had not withdrawn from the contest but that a notice of retirement was spuriously filed on his behalf before the Assistant Returning Officer, as a result of which his ballot box was not placed in the polling booth.2. We heard arguments in this appeal, during which it was pointed out to us that the notice of retirement prima facie appeared to be signed by one Chandoo son of Sonu of Balodabazar, to compare whose signatures two documents executed by him long before the present election were exhibited. A handwriting expert was also examined on behalf of the respondents to support this conclusion.3. The facts of the case are as follows: The election was for the Bh...
Tag this Judgment!ishak Ali Vs. Mst. Unnasbi PorthahIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP209
1. The second plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. 2. The present suit was brought by one Ramjan All and the present appellant, Ishak Ali, claiming one-third share in the property left by one Shahbax Khan. The genealogy in so far as we are concerned is as follows : INAYAT KHAN ____________________________________|___________________________________________ | | | | | | |Nage Khan Jainuddin Khan Salabat Khan Mohiuddin Khan Jahuranbi Sahuranbi Mulayambi ______________________|__________________ | | | |Yakub Khan Shahbaz Khan Jebanbi Ninibi | = Unhashi = Abbasali = Md. Abid Betulbi (Deft. 1) | | ___________________|______ Yakub (Deft. 5) | | | Ishaq Ali Ramjanali (?) | (Pltf.2) (Pltf. 1) | ____________________________________ | | | Lal Mohammad Ayub Mohammad Safl Mohammad (Deft. 2) (Deft. 3) (Deft. 4)3. After the death of Inayat Khan the property was divided equally between his four sons. At that time, it appears that the claim of the daughters of Inayat Khan was overlooked. L...
Tag this Judgment!Dauram Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1958
Reported in: [1958]9STC673(MP)
ORDERBhutt, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner was registered as a dealer under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act. It appears that during the proceedings of assessment of sales tax for the periods (1) 1st June, 1947, to 12th November, 1947, (2) 13th November, 1947, to 31st October, 1948, and (3) 1st November, 1948, to 21st October, 1949, the petitioner prayed by an application, dated 6th August, 1952, that the certificate of his registration as a dealer should be cancelled. No order on that application was then passed, and the assessment was completed. 3. The Sales Tax Officer, Bilaspur, Respondent No. 2, started proceedings against him for assessment of sales tax for the following periods: (i) 30th October, 1950, to 9th November, 1950. (ii) 10th November, 1950, to 30th October, 1951. (iii) 31st October, 1951, to 18th November, 1952. (iv) 19th October, 1952, to 6th November, 1953. During the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhojraj Krishnarao and anr. Vs. Darsu and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP52
B.K. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is second appeal by two plaintiffs, Bhojraj and Narsingh Rao, who filed a suit against several defendants for the recovery of possession of -/-/6 share of the village of Ambhori, Tahsil Multai, along with sir fields and some khudkasht land, situate at Ambhori, and a house. The plaintiffs-appellants averred that they had pin-chased the suit property for Rs. 1,000/- from one Wamanrao, Brahmin, of Bhainsdahi. They were ousted from possession by the defendants after getting a decree against them from the Court of the Civil Judge (Class II), Multai, under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. They, therefore, filed this suit for possession of the suit property.2. The defendants resisted the suit on the main ground that Mst. Radhabai, widow of Bapuji, had executed a perpetual lease in their favour and they had been in possession of the property since 1-11-1917.3. The trial Court granted a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs on condition of payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaprasad Vs. Chandrika Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP226
1. This appeal under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act) has been filed by one Shivprasad Chandpuria, whose election petition before the Tribunal failed under section 90 (3) of the Act.2. The appellant Shivprasad Chandpuria was a candidate at the last elections for the Legislative Assembly from the Bargi (97) constituency. The election took place on the 9th March 1957, and respondent No. 1 Chandrika Prasad Tripathi was elected. There were two other candidates, who are shown as respondents Nos. 2 and 3.3. As is required by section 117 of the Act, Shivprasad Chandpuria, who filed his election petition out of which this appeal arises, made a deposit of Rs. 1,000/- to cover the costs of the answering respondent. He did so in the Treasury at Jabalpur, and it is in connexion with, this deposit that the order of the Tribunal was passed. According to the Tribunal, the deposit receipt, which has to be sent to the Election Commission, was not in accor...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1958
Reported in: [1960]39ITR429(MP)
In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »