Madhya Pradesh Court July 1959 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.
Balakdas Vithoba Vs. Asst. Security Officer, S.E. Rly. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP183
Shrivastava, J.1. This order shall also dispose of the connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 31, 34 and 39, all of 1957. All these appeals are directed against the order of Choudhuri J. refusing to interfere with the removal of the petitioners from service.2. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are Class IV employees of the railway administration and were appointed by the Superintendent, Watch and Ward Department, Chakradharpur. In the year 1955, this department was given the name of Security Force, and the Chief Security Officer was declared its head. Rules governing the conditions of service of the Security Force were made by the President purporting to act under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under these rules, the Assistant Security Officer was designated as the appointing and dismissing authority of Class IV servants in the Security Force. All the petitioners were removed from service by the Assistant Security Officer acting under the powers conferred by these...
Abdul Karim Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP54; 1960CriLJ236
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. The circumstances in which this application for bail is directly submitted to the High Court are that the petitioner who is a legal practitioner is a resident of Shajapur. In para 12 of his affidavit dated 13th June 1959, he has stated that he could not move the Additional District Magistrate Shajapur for bail because he has gone to a link Court in connection with official work. There is a link Court at Rajgarh. It is further alleged that the Sessions Judge was on leave, therefore the Additional Sessions Judge could not hear his application for bail because unless a case is transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge by the Sessions Judge, he does not hear cases. 2. The petitioner in this case is a lawyer who practises on me criminal side at Shajapur and in his application for bail, he has alleged that because he does Criminal cases, he has unfortunately incurred the displeasure of the Thanedar at Shajapur. The Thanedar who has filed an affidavit in reply has den...
Nathulal and ors. Vs. Nand Ram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP108
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J. 1. The facts of this revision petition are that the applicants obtained on 18-2-1952 from the Court of the Civil Judge, Ujjain, an ex parte moneydecree for Rs. 371-8-6 against Nandram. Thereafter! the opponent took proceedings for setting aside the ex parte decree which were ultimately dismissed pa 16-3-1955. The decree-holders then applied for framing of the decree and a copy of the decree being furnished to them. The decree was framed accordingly on 12-10-1955. On 21-3-1957 the petitioners filed an application for execution of that decree, That application for execution was on the face of it barred by time. But the decree holders urged in the executing Court that they were entitled to a deduction of the time taken in the proceedings which the defendant opponent had taken for setting aside the ex parte decree.This argument found favour with the civil judge second class, Ujjain who held that the decree holders were entitled to the exclusion of this time under Sectio...
Bansidhar Munnalal Vs. Ramchandra Bardichand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP313
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923) by the employer who has been ordered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ujjain, to compensate the respondent for the loss of one eye being hit by a piece of stone, in the course of his employment under the appellant for the breaking of stone slabs. The points raised are firstly, that he was not really working at the time of the mishap, but happened to pass that way; secondly that there was no notice as required by Section 10 or any justification for dispensing with it under Proviso (b); thirdly, that Section 12 of the said Act has been invoked incorrectly, the respondent being himself uncertain as to who his immediate employer was and had given a long list.2. It would be convenient to consider these points ad seriatim.3. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Chaphekar has taken me through the entire evidence to show that the respondent was not working on that date in any part of...
Motilal Hazarimal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC316(MP)
G.P. Bhutt, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 23(1) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The questions which are referred to for judgment of this Court are the following:(1) Whether from the transactions in dispute and evidence on record the assessed is merely a del credere or financing commission agent and does not come under the definition of dealer in respect of charcoal sales?(2) Whether in the instant case the assessee can be deemed to have had dominion over the goods in question by virtue of his financing the purchasers and sellers and getting hold of the documents of title?2. The questions involve the assessment of sales tax on the business carried on by Motilal Hazarimal of Narasingpur during the period 1st November, 1948, to 21st October, 1949. During the proceedings of assessment before the Sales Tax Officer the assessee made a reference to the Sales Tax Commissioner under Section 19(b) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act ...
Mst. Annapurnabai Widow of Deolal and anr. Vs. Mst. Pyaribai, Widow of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP222
Bhutt, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal1 by the defendants against the judgment and decree of Chaturvedi J., passed in Second Appeal No. 695 of 1950.2. The plaintiff-respondent Pyaribai was in the keeping of one Deolal, who was the predecessor in interest of the present appellants. She purchased two houses situate in Bharkapara, in the town of Rajnandgaon, by sale deeds dated 6-6-1922 and 30-4-1924. Latterly, disputes arose between her and Deolal as regards the ownership of the houses. The matter was accordingly referred to arbitration by the parties. The arbitrators gave an award on 20-4-1935, in which it was held that only Deolal way and would be in possession of the two houses and Pyaribai had no right thereto.3. Pyaribai filed Civil Suit No. 5 of 1937 against Deolal in the Court of Sub-Judge First Class, Rajnandgaon, to set aside the award and for a declaration of her title to the house in dispute. Before that suit was filed she had obtained a decree against two debtors in Ci...
Madhorao Ramchandra Salunke Vs. Rambharosesingh Zalimsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP30
ORDERShiv Dayal Srivastava, J.1. The disputed facts are that in Civil Suit No. 68 of 1949 the additional Civil Judge, Second Class, Gwalior passed a decree in favour of the petitioner for arrears of rent and also for ejectment. The respondent on the other hand took proceedings for the assessment of fair rent before the Rent Controller. On 1-3-1949 a rent of Rs. 19-6-0 per year was fixed as fair rent of the premises by the Rent Controller and that was affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Bharat on 1st February 1955. The petitioner (decree-holder) recovered Rs. 362-10-6 on the basis of the rate of rent which was the basis of the decree in Civil Suit No. 68 of 1949. Then he brought the present suit in the Court of Small Causes alleging that only Rs. 119-14-6 were due, and thus the decree-holder had realized an excess amount of Rs. 242-12-0. The suit has been decreed. Aggrieved by the same the present revision application has been preferred by the defendant.2. Shri Garg, learned counsel fo...
Sardar Madhavrao and ors. Vs. Narayan Damodar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP66
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by judgment-debtors from an order of the civil judge allowing execution for the entire decretal amount by two out of nine decree holders in whose favour a joint decree had been passed. The Executing court had overruled the decree holders' objection that since part of the costs was separately allotted to the individual decree-holders, these two of them should not be allowed to levy execution in respect of the sums allotted to others. 2. The case hinges upon two questions. One of purely theoretical nature, whether the decree which is, otherwise joint becomes a collection of a number of separate decrees merely because of the apportionment of part of the subject matter between the different decree-holders. Secondly the more practical one whether the apportionment of part or whole of the subject-matter of a decree is a condition debarring any of the joint decree holders from levying execution on his own in respect of the part allotted to the other decre...
Kachrulal Thavrji and anr. Vs. Rameshwardayal Dhoolji
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP305; 1960CriLJ1337
H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff's whose suit for damages for malicious prosecution has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. There is no dispute on the allegations of facts, the questions being, whether in the circumstances of this case, the defendant can be deemed to have started the prosecution; whether the infor-mation given by him was false or one without sufficient cause; and whether in the present case the background of old feud was at all material. 2. The relevant facts are the following. The defendant is a doctor and a neighbour of the plaintiffs who are father and son, and who used to do business in the sale of different commodities including kerosene oil. Sometime in 1946, when the Defence of Gwalior Rules (which were a copy of the Defence of India Rules) were in force, and kerosene oil was a controlled commodity, the defendant informed the police that the appellants had stored 20 tins of kerosene oil. The actual wording of the information con...
Abdul Shakur Gulam Rasul and ors. Vs. Abdul Sattar Gulam Rasul and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP317
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This application in revision arises out of circumstances that can be called peculiar. There are four applicants who are the plaintiffs in a partition suit, the first three being brothers and the fourth, a sister. The defendants are two other brothers. At the first instance, the plaintiffs, that is, all the four of them, filed a petition that they should be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. After the usual hearing, the Civil Judge held : 'Even if the three main plaintiffs were insolvent, still, the fourth, that is the sister, was possessed of properties sufficient to enable her to pay the Court-fee'. This is a revision and I am not prepared to go behind this finding. Accordingly, the Civil Judge gave time to the plaintiffs to file the Court-fee. After all, under Section 6 of the Court-fees Act, the document, namely, the plaint, has to be taxed as a single document and not taxed with reference to one or other of the joint plaintiffs. Within the time given, the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »