Madhya Pradesh Court May 1959 Judgments
Birdhichand Sobharam Pawar Vs. Manaklal Pyarelal Halwai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP124
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, is directed against an order of the Rent Controller, Chhindwara (respondent No. 2) dated 28-5-1958 and another affirming order of the Deputy Collector with appellate powers (respondent No. 3) dated 1.4-11-1958 granting, under Clause 13(3)(ii) and (v) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order), permission to the landlord (respondent No. 1) to serve a notice on his tenant (petitioner) to determine his tenancy,2. The petitioner has been long occupying as a tenant a house in Golgunj, Chhindwara, more particularly described in paragraph 1 of Annexure A. The respondent No. 1 purchased the house from the previous owner, Mukitn Khan, on 26-8-1956. In December 1958, he made an application (Annexure A) for permission, under Clause 13 of the Rent Control. Order, to serve a notice to determine the te...
Tag this Judgment!Nathuram Shukla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP174; 1960CriLJ832; [1960(1)FLR476]; (1960)ILLJ784MP
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This application in revision is directed against the conviction of the applicant (Nathuram under Section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act) for which he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- or to suffer, in default, simple imprisonment for one week.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Nathuram is the manager of 'Radhakishan Narayandas Bidi Karkhana' situate at 280, South Miloniganj Road, Jabalpur, in which, at the material time, 19 persons were employed. In that establishment, Bidis were not actually made but Bidis made by contractors were received, sorted out, paid for, baked and packed for the market.3. Nathuram admitted that, on 3rd September 1956, when B. Section Thakur, Inspector under the Act, visited the establishment, he had not maintained the records and registers required by Section 18 of the Act and Rules 21, 22, 25 and 27 of the Rules framed thereunder.4. The prosecution case was that Nathuram was an...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Premanand Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP12; 1960CriLJ79
ORDERShiv Dayal Shrivastava, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Magistrate First Class, Pachhar, requiring the Police to put up a charge-sheet against the petitioner and also to arrest him.2. The material facts are that a report was made by one Musammat Tudia in the Police Station, Ashoknagar alleging that the petitioner Naraindas alias Premanand committed rape on her. After investigation the Police made a final report to the Magistrate First Class, Pachhar for cancellation of the case because it found no substance in the report lodged by her. However, the complainant filed a protest petition alleging that the police was taking sides with the accused. Her application dated June 11, 1958 is in detail. It was on this that the Magistrate passed the impugned order.3. The petitioner made an application in revision to the Sessions Judge, Guna, who has dismissed it and upheld the order of the Magistrate. In doing so he has discussed a number of decided cases and h...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Lakhanlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP186; 1960CriLJ833
ORDERG.P. Bhutt, C.J.1. The question in this reference is whether the plea of guilty made on behalf of the accused by their counsel in their presence under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a legal basis for conviction.2. The decision in Municipal Board Lucknow v. Tulsi Ram and Sons, AIR 1925 Oudh 305 (2), which is relied upon by the referring Judge, is laconic and is only an endorsement of the report of the magistrate that his procedure was incorrect. The question has been discussed more fully in Dorabshah Bomanji v. Emperor, ILR 50 Rom 250; (AIR 1926 Bom 218) in which it was held that where the Court dispenses with the personal attendance of an accused and permits him to appear by a pleader, it can act upon a plea given by the pleader in a ease falling under Sections 242 and 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is in accordance with the decisions in England under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 11 and 12 Vict., c. 43. Section 14, on which the provisions of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Loknath Nathulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP181; [1960(1)FLR58]; (1960)IILLJ348MP
ORDERP.R. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision application against the order elated 6-2-1958 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jubbulpore in Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1957 -- whereby he maintained the order of conviction and sentence passed against the applicant by the First Class Magistrate Jabalpur In Criminal Case No. 1784 of 1956. The facts of the case briefly stated arc that the applicant has under an agreement Ex. D/1 contracted to supply to Mohanlal Hargovind 'Biris'. The terms of the agreement show that Mohanlal Hargovind was to supply raw materials to the applicant who in his turn was, on his own responsibility as to payment of wages, to engage workers for the purpose of getting 'Biris' prepared out of the said raw materials.2. The supply of 'Bins' prepared by the workers employed by the applicant was subject to approval of a person to be deputed for this purpose by Mohanlal Hargovind. Mohanlal Hargovind's munim was entitled to check the stock of leaves and tobacco wit...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Khurshid Ali Mir Ashraf Ali Vs. Inspector-general of Police and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP117
Bhutt, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Khurshed Ali, a Sub-Inspector of Police, impugns the order of the Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, compulsorily retiring him from service after completion of 30 years' qualifying -service.2. The petitioner entered the police service on 26-11-1926 and was confirmed as Sub-Inspector of Police in. 1957, In May 1957 while he was posted in the interior of Raigarh district he made an application for his transfer. However, his request was not granted and he was served with an order of the Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, dated 20-1-1958, compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from .1-6-1958 under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the new Pension Rules.3. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Section I of the new Pension Rules is as below:'A Government servant may retire from service at any time after completing 30 years' qualifying superior service provided that he shall give in this b...
Tag this Judgment!Mulamchand Ratilal Asathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP152
Bhutt, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the order of Naik J. in Miscellaneous Petition No. 197 of 1956. The order in this appeal shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 92, 142 and 168, all of 1956. In all these cases the right of the State Government to realize the dues under forest contracts as arrears of land revenue is in question.2. As a result of the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act 1950 (No. 1of 1951), the village forests vested in the State with effect from 31 March 1951. The right to propagate and collect lac in some of the forests of Balaghat district was auctioned by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 during September and October 1951, and the bids of the present appellant Mulamchand for Rs. 69,500/-, and of the petitioners of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 142 and 168 of 1956, namely, Keshrimal of the former and Shivlal o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›