Madhya Pradesh Court September 1959 Judgments
Tulsiram Vs. Shyamlal Ganpatlal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP73
Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal arises out ofa decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, reversing the decree passed by the Civil Judge, first class, Lashkar, whereby the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and possession was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Tulsiram instituted this suit on 10-7-1950, on the allegations that Smt. Kapolibai was the owner of the suit property, that she died on 2-4-1950, leaving a will dated 19-5-1920 whereby she bequeathed in his favour the suit house -and other movable property, and that the defendants took wrongful possession, of it. He also complained in the plaint that the defendants had thrown out stone slabs kept in two-rooms and occupied them and. further, that Shyamlal (defendant No. 1) had given notice to the tenants residing in another portion of the house asserting. his own title.2. Initially there were two defendants namely (1) Shyam Lal minor son of Ganpatilal and (2) Rewadmal. Later on Ganapatlal was ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Prabhu Dayal Khubchand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP85; 1960CriLJ354
ORDERAbdul Hakim Khan, J. 1. The facts leading to this case are that on seizure of some cattle from accused Raghuvar, the Police entrusted them to the custody of Prabhu Dayal and Phool Chand, who executed a bond in favour of the police promising to produce the cattle either before the police or before the court. On determination of the proceedings in favour of the accused from whose possession the cattle had been seized, the accused wanted back his cattle. Some cattle were returned by the Supardgidars to the accused but others could not be returned because according to the Supardgidars they had died.The trial court held that the plea that cattle had died was untrue, and therefore, ordered the Supardgidars either to return the cattle or to give their price as entered in the bond. In other words the court forfeited the bond and ordered the Supardgidars to pay the penalty. Against this order a revision was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morena who rejected it. Now the...
Tag this Judgment!Michael S/O Eric Swami Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP118; 1960CriLJ486
S.B. Sen, J.1. The appellant Michael has been convicted under Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and three years respectively thereunder.2. The trial was by jury. Seven jurors constituted the jury. The case of the appellant in appeal, apart from other grounds, is that out of seven jurors, four did not know and understand English language. The charge to the jury was read out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in English and it was not translated completely into Hindi and read out to the jurors who did not understand English. An affidavit was filed in this connection, by the appellant. I had asked the State to reply to the points raised in the affidavit. I find that the reply is not a categorical denial of the allegations mentioned in the affidavit. I, therefore, summoned the four jurors to appear before me. Out of them, three appeared. The summons against the fourth was not received and the counsel for the appellant gave he...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Shankar Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP86
Pandey, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of my Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother, Naik J. I fully agree with the conclusions of my Lord the Chief Justice. I had not at first intended to record a separate opinion, but since the main question involved is important, I feel, upon reflection, that I ought to express my opinion.2. The question is whether the lands covered by Clauses (i) to (iv) as enumerated in paragraph 7 of the opinion of my Lord the Chief Justice were Khudkasht lands within the meaning of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (II of 1917).3. Clause (5) of Section 2 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, which defines khudkasht, is as under:''Khudkasht' means that part of the home-farm of a mahal which is cultivated by the proprietor as such and which is not sir-land: Explanation (1) -- Land allowed to lie fallow according to agricultural practice shall be deemed to be cultivated. Explanation (2) -- In this definition 'pro...
Tag this Judgment!Bhondu Ganpat Kirad and ors. Vs. Ramdayal Govindram Kirad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP51
Pandey, J. 1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are: (i) Whether the property inherited by a Hindu widow from her son is devested on account of her subsequent remarriage? (ii) Whether the cases of Babulal v. Sher jamakhand, Second Appeal No. 46 of 1957, D/-24-9-1954 (Nag) and Panna v. Mst. Goura, Second Appeal No. 650 of 1951, D/-19-4-1957 (Madh Pra), an the one hand or Bisahin v. Gaitri, Second Appeal No. 210 of 1938, D/-11-10-1940 (Nag) and the earlier cases on the other hand lay down the correct law? (iii) Whether a Hindu widow, who has interest in her deceased husband's property along with her Minor son under Section 3(2) of the. Hindu Women's lights to Property Act. 1937, gets the property after the death of her minor son on account of the fluctuation of her interest to the full or that interest vanishes after her son's death and she succeeds to the property under the general Hindu Law as mother of her deceased son? 2. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant fo...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Committee Vs. Ambika Prasad Gupta and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1962MP6
Sharma, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India far the issue of a writ of Certiorari and Mandamus.2. The case for the petitioner is that the respondent Amhikaprasad was temporarily appointed by it on the post of a teacher in the year 1955. His services were dispensed with with effect from the 30th of April, 1958 by a notice dated 27-3-1958. Ambikaprasad appealed against the order whereby his services were terminated to the Sub-Divisional Officer Kawardha under Rule 2 of the Rules framed under Section 25 (6) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This appeal wan allowed and Ambikaprasad was ordered to be re-instated. The contention of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Kawardha is oil the face of it illegal and without jurisdiction. The validity of the impugned order is challenged on the following grounds:(i) that the appeal was filed after the prescribed period of limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Makhanlal Girwarlal Vs. HarnaraIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP247b
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is an application under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India.2. Firstly, Shri Gupta claims a certificate under Sub-clause (a) on the ground that the value of the suit in the Court o first instance was more than Rs. 10,000/- and it was a suit instituted at a time when the Gwalior State Civil Procedure Code (Zabta Diwani) was in force and the parties had a right of appeal to the Privy Council of that State.3. In order to appreciate this contention, the following dates are material. The suit was instituted on December 19, 1947 in the Court of the District Judge, Gwalior (then in the Gwalior State, a Princely State). The plaintiff's suit was dismissed on March 7, 1955 by the District Judge, Gwalior (then in the State of Madhya Bharat, a Part B State.) The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Bharat on May 14, 1955. That appeal was transferred to this Court on the Reorganisation of States on November 1, 1956 and was decided by us on July 31...
Tag this Judgment!Ratiram Durgaprasad Saini Vs. Regional Settlement Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP230; [1960(1)FLR218]; (1960)IILLJ415MP
H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application by an extemporary (15 days notices) servant of the Union Government in the Regional Settlement Commissioner's office against the termination of his service on the 24th July 1956 on the allegation that his service has been terminated not in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment, but on account of certain charges, and that the procedure under Article 311 of the Constitution not having been followed, the order of the Regional Settlement Commissioner should be set aside and he should be ordered to be reinstated. 2. The facts of the case are the following : The appellant was appointed as a temporary servant and was working in that capacity in June 1956. Certain charges were made against him and a formal charge sheet given with the usual order asking him to show cause. However, that was not pursued. On the 24th July, 1956 he was asked to hand over charge to some other person having been shown an order which mentioned that his s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramgopal Kaniyalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP106; [1960]38ITR193(MP)
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi. The assesses did not appear when the case was heard.2. The question which has been referred to us for opinion is:'Whether the assessee is entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 21,748/- against his other business Income falling under Section 10 of the Act?'3. The assessee derived income in the relevant year from (i) house property; (ii) money lending and commission agency; and (iii) speculation in gold, silver and cotton. The Income-tax Officer refused to adjust the loss of Rs. 21,748/- in the speculation business against the profits from other business. The assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. A second appeal was preferred before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, which allowed it, but has referred to this Court t...
Tag this Judgment!Antarsingh Bapusingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP254; [1960(1)FLR262]
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application by a police constable contending that the order of dismissal is bad for two reasons of non-compliance with the statutory rules. Firstly, while he had been appointed by the Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Bharat, he was removed by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Indore who is, of course, a Subordinate authority. The second ground is that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses that deposed against him,2. The first ground is by now covered by a number of rulings including one by the Supreme Court in Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 19.58 SO 228. In 1946, the petitioner was appointed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police of the erstwhile Indore State. He was continued in the service of the Madbya Bharat State and was ultimately absorbed in the service of the new State; but the appointment as such continued and there was no fresh appointment. Under the rules in force in the Madh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »