Madhya Pradesh Court November 1959 Judgments
Radhe Shyam Agarwal Vs. Kashinath Vaish and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP169
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. This revision is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Civil Judge, First Class, Gwalior on June 29, 1959 in Civil Suit No. 20 of 1955 whereby he has refused to stay the suit on the application of the defendant.2. The facts material for this revision are these:-The plaintiffs, Kashinath and Rambabu, brought this suit on January 8, 1955, against the petitioner Radhey Shyam for ejectment from a shop and for arrears of rent on the allegations that the suit shop, situated in the ground floor of a building called 'Sweet Cottage,' was taken from them by the defendant on June 16, 1954, under a rent note executed by him at Rs. 35/- per month for 11 months; that the defendant paid Rs. 30/- on the 26th June Rs. 35/- on the 31st August and again Rs. 35/- on the 6th October 1954; that they were in arrears of rent from the 16th June to the 31st December, 1954; that the defendant started interferring with the plaintiffs' possession in respect of other portions o...
Tag this Judgment!Umraolal Subalal, a Partnership Firm of Bhind Vs. State of M.P. and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1962MP2; [1960]11STC337(MP)
Naik, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ or direction to the respondents not to charge sales tax on 'bura sugar imported by it into Madhya Bharat, on the ground that the law imposing such a tax is discriminatory, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of sugar, bura and other goods, in Bhind, which was formerly in Madhya Bharat. It was also a licensee under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950 (No. 30 of 1950). For its business of selling 'bura sugar', it imported 'bura sugar' from places outside Madhya Bharat into Bhind and sold it to various consumers in Bhind. The sales tax authorities, Madhya Bharat, are claiming sales tax on the sales of imported 'bura sugar' made by it in Bhind during the period 1956-57, under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act (No. 30 of 1950).3. The relevant entry under which the sales tax is being charged is contained in item 31 of Schedule III of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!The Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1962MP225
Naik, J.1. The order in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956, 20 of 1957, 102 of 1957 235 of 1957 and 268 of 1957.2. All these cases arise out of assessment proceedings under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and raise some common questions of law. They are, therefore, being disposed of together. In all of them, assessment orders have been made and appeals from the said orders are pending before the appellate authorities under the Act. The petitioners in all these cases are challenging the assessment orders and the notices of demand made thereunder, under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia, on the ground that the assessments in all of them violated Articles 286 and 301 of the Constitution. In letters patent Appeal No. 55 of 1958 Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956 and 20 of 1957, it was also contended that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (Act No. VII of 1956) was Void and...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Kapoor Chand Vs. Chhatarsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP141
A.H. Khan, J.1. This second appeal was filed before the Rajasthan High Court. On the re-organisation of the States, this case was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court where it is being decided now.2. The short facts of the case are that one Bhola Singh, father of the two plaintiffs Chhatar Singh and Daulatsingb, pawned some ornaments with Gulab Chand defendants in year 1920. In 1925, Gulab Chand brought a suit against the present plaintiffs (who were minors) along with his other three brothers, who were majors for the sale of pawned articles and the repayment of his debts. In that case a compromise was effected whereby the defendant was allowed to keep the ornaments and thus the debt arising out of the pledge was liquidated.In other words the elder brothers of the plaintiffs thought that the ornaments when sold would not fetch the amount due on the pledge and that perhaps they may have to pay more to the pawnee out of their own pocket. A decree in terms of the compromise was pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram and ors. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP312
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. An application for bail under Section 498 Cr. P. Code was moved before the Sessions Judge, Bhilsa, who disposed it of in a most perfunctory manner. Without applying his mind to the facts of the case, which, he should have done, he has refused bail.2. From the F. I. R. it appears that the accused Kashiram in this case is a person who is married to the sister of the complainant, Kamal Singh. It also appears there was also a dispute between the brothers-in-law with regard to the sending of Mst. Halki Bai, wife of the accused Kashiram. We must now consider this case in the background of these facts. The accused have been challenged for an offence of dacoity. Out of the four accused, who have been arrested in this case, nothing has been recovered from the possession of three.Only from accused Nirpatsingh, one Kangna (bangle of silver) has been recovered, the weight of which is 16 Tolas. But in the F. I. R., the weight of the looted Kangna is given as 12 tolas. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal Naneemal Vs. Mohanlal Krishunlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP167
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. The respondent instituted a suit against the appellant for ejectment and arrears of rent. The trial Judge dismissed the suit as regards ejectment but passed a decree for Rs. 80/-, i.e. two months' arrears of rent upto October 31, 1955. The suit was instituted on November 7, 1955. The lower appellate Court has now passed a decree for eviction also.2. In the second appeal it is not disputed that the defendant was in arrears of rent for the months of September and October 1955. The main contention is that no notice was validly served on him under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. It was urged in the plaint that the landlord gave a notice on August 16, 1955, but it was returned to him. He issued a second notice on the 26th September but that too came hack. These two notices were sent by post. The plaintiff then issued a third one which he personally delivered on the 26th September to the defendant's son Baikunth Nath Gupta. It is urged by Shri Inamdar that the service of...
Tag this Judgment!Manphool and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP177
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, recommending to the High Court that a complaint filed by Bajranglal in respect of an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and a challan submitted in respect of the same offence by the Police may be amalgamated and the cases be tried jointly. In support of this recommendation the learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon decisions reported in Bharat Kishore Lal v. Judhistir Modak, AIR 1929 Pat 473 (FB), U Po Yone v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Rang 271 and Mukania v. Achalia, AIR 1952 Raj 160. 2. On referring to the record I find that Bajranglal complainant filed a complaint against 15 persons and the Magistrate after recording the evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. C. found that there was prima facie case against six persons, namely, Virbal, Bihari, Shishupal, Kandiya, Gangadhar and Gyasiya and he fixed the date for further proceedings against these six persons. Subsequent to the filing of this' private comp...
Tag this Judgment!Lacchan Puranik Sahu and anr. Vs. Mst. Fulkunwar W/O. Alen Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1961MP239
Golvalker, J.1. This first appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the suit properties on the footing that they originally belonged to her father one Dayaram. According to the plaintiff, some time after the death of Dayaram in 1948 his widow Mst. Sukhia sold 8.97 acres of occupancy land to Lachan by a registered sale-deed dated 6th February 1950 for a consideration of Rs. 800/-; that there was no legal necessity at all for this sale; that on the same day Mst Sukhia gifted away 9.41 acres of occupancy land to Mst. Ramhulla; and that after the death of Mst. Sukhia in 1950 Mst. Ramhulla took possession of the remaining property left behind by Mst. Sukhia. The appellant Mst. Ramhulla is a niece of the plaintiff being her sister Jodhkunwar's daughter. The plaintiff claimed moveable and immoveable property of Dayaram as the next reversioner after the death of his widow Sukhia.2. The plea of the defendants was that after the death of Dayaram the c...
Tag this Judgment!KailashnaraIn Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP291; 1960CriLJ1220
ORDERAbdul Hakim Khan, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the applicant was the President of Second Class Municipality, Khilchipur, After the term of Municipality was over, he sought re-election and was elected a councillor of the Khilchipur Municipality. At present the accused is a councillor of the Khilchipur Municipality and is not its President. The Police filed a Challan against him under Section 409 Indian Penal Code for the offence of criminal breach of trust alleged to be committed by him while he was President of the Municipality, The applicant raised the objection that according to Section 42 of the Municipalities Act (Act No. 1 of 1954) he was a public servant and that having regard to the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence without the previous sanction of Government. The trial Court overruled that objection on the ground that his term of office as President had been over ...
Tag this Judgment!Mannasingh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP151
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhind, in case No. 151 of 1957, convicted the two applicants (the Driver and the Conductor of a Bus No. MBA 1032) under Section 42(1) read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 20/- each. Against their conviction and sentences they went in revision before theSessions Judge who disallowed it. Now they have come up in revision before the High Court.2. Both the courts below have found that the Bus was overloaded. This is a question of fact and there is nothing on the record to disturb the concurrent finding.3. The only point of law pressed before me is that under Section 42(1) read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, its owner should be fined and not the Conductor or the Driver. On a common sense view of the question, I find that the argument is unacceptable. If the conductor and the Bus Driver conspired together and over-loaded a bus, I can see no reason why the owner should be punis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »