Madhya Pradesh Court January 1960 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.
NizamuddIn Vs. Huseni and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP212
Shiv Dayal, J.1. The appellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed in his favour by the trial Judge, but it has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the marriage was not valid, that it was performed when the wife was only five years of age, that it was never consummated and that on attaining puberty the wife repudiated it. The defendants in the suit were Mst. Huseni the wife (defendant No. 1), her father Tunda (defendant No. 2). Mst. Shubratan mother (defendant No. 3) and her two uncles Subba (defendant No. 4) and Hallu (defendant No. 5).2. The learned counsel for the respondent First of all urges that the suit could not be maintained because the plaintiff was a resident of Pakistan and he had come here just casually. Reliance is placed on Nusserwarji Pestonji v. Eleonora Wadia, AIR 1914 Bom 211(2). In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted in view of Section 83 of the Code of Civil procedure, which enables an alien friend to institut...
Sayyed Ibne Hasan Mazhar HusaIn Vs. Mst. Mehtab Latafat Husain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP237
Shiv Dayal, J.1. Ibne Hasan appellant instituted a suit against Latafat Husain and Musammat Mehtab (wife of Latafat Husain) on the allegations that the disputed house bearing municipal number 1676 situated in Bhind was his property, but the first defendant executed a gift deed in favour of the second defendant on 1-2-1951 in respect of the northern portion of the house, which gift was void and ineffective as against the plaintiff. After disclosing the source of his title the plaintiff claimed decree for declaration of Ms title, for possession and for cancellation of the gift deed. During the pendency of the suit Latafat Husain died.2. The defence was that the plaintiff was the owner only of the southern portion, which had been given by way of gift, but not ot the northern portion. Both the Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that at no time had possession been delivered of the northern portion to the plaintiff, nor was there any registered sale deed in his favour.3. It ...
Saira Bai W/O Asgar HussaIn Vs. S.S. Joshi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP260
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the Asstt. Custodian and Custodian of Evacuee Property, Indore. The circumstances leading to the petition are as follows:1a. One Mohd. Khan s/o Karim Khan of Neemuch owned agricultural lands in four villages Chouth-Kheda, Raatdia, Jamunia and Kana-Kheda. He also owned a house No. 7 in Kotmohalla Neemuch. Besides this property he also had mortgagee rights with respect to certain lands in the village Khatria and he was in possession of them as a usufructuary mortgagee. Said Mohammad Khan had a son Asgar Hussain. Mohammad Khan by his deed dated 5-8-1935 effected 'Hiba' (Gift) of most of his property including lands in the aforesaid villages and the house in Kotmoholla Neemuch in favour of his son Asgar Hussain.The hiba-nama thus made by him was registered the same day. Mobammad Khan provided by means of a deed dated 4-1-1946 that he would give h...
Lala Har Bhagwandas and anr. Vs. Diwan Chand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP195
ORDERP.K. Tare, J. 1. This petition purports to be one under Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It seeks a reversal of the order, dated 13-6-1959, passed by Shri S.P. Hakim, First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 1959, arising out of the direction given by Shri H.N. Dubey, Magistrate First class, Jabalpur about return of a truck involved in Criminal Case No. 1486 of 1958, dated 10-3-1959.2. The learned counsel for the non-applicant urged that under Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no such application lies, where this Court is not in seisin of an appeal or a revision. The learned counsel for the applicants urged that Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code confers supervisory powers on this Court. The said section is as follows:'Any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order under Section 517, Section 518 or Section 519, passed by a Court subordinate thereto, to be stayed pending consideration by th...
Jobilla Coalfields Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP184
Pandey, J.1. Under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :(i) Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of this case, the original assessment order passed on 21 March 1953 was barred by time?(ii) If the answer of the first question is in the affirmative, whether on the above facts and circumstances of the case, this plea of limitation was open to the assessee to be taken in the subsequent proceedings after the cancellation of the said assessment order and whether the reassessment order passed on 17 November 1954 is bad in law?2. The facts of the case giving rise to the two. questions under reference are not in dispute. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on the business of mining coal at Birsinghpur in district Shahadol, which formed a part of the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh. Since the Company's income for the assessment year 1943-44 (acc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trilokchand Kalyanmal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP206; [1960]39ITR131(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner, Income-tax, made by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. It arises out of the assessment made on M/s. Trilokchand Kalyanmal of Indore, a Hindu undivided family, in respect of the assessment year 1950-51. The question referred to for our opinion is as follows:'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the dividend income of Rs. 64,926/ arising from companies registered in Part B States is exempt from taxation under para 12 of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order of 1950, in spite of the fact that the assessee had incurred business losses in Part B States?'2. During the material period the assessee had business activities in Indore, Ujjain and Bombay, which included trading in commodities and conducting the business of the managing and selling agents of the Kalyanmal Mills Ltd., Indore. It derived income from various sources in Part A and Part B States an...
Horace Ross Vs. the State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP252; [1960(1)FLR364]; (1961)ILLJ272MP
K.L. Pandey, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for suitable writs or directions (i) to quash a notice dated 20 March 1959 (Annexure-B) intimating to the petitioner that he would be retired from service on the expiry of three months from the date of its receipt, (ii) to require the respondents to postpone the date of retirement so as enable the petitioner to enjoy the earned leave due to him and also (iii) to direct the State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent 1) to place fully and correctly before the Central Government all facts relating to the leave due to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was promoted from the State Police Service to the Indian Police Service, on which, post he was subsequently confirmed. At the material time, he had completed more than 30 years of qualifying service. On 20-3-1959, the Government of Madhya Pradesh (respondent 1) served on the petitioner a notice (Annexure B) under Rule 17 (2) of the All India Services (Deathcum-Retirement Benef...
Firm Kishanlal Shrilal Patwa Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rly. Administra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP289
Krishnan, J.1. A difference of opinion having arisen between my learned brothers Shree Nevaskar J. and Shri Shiv Dayal J. as to whether compensation could be properly awarded to the plaintiff appellants in this case, a reference has been made to me. Both the judges have held that in regard to the delivery of a consignment of goods to the consignee plaintiff, the Railway Administration, defendant respondent, was guilty of misconduct by the delay of 15 days, beyond the time in which in due course of their busi-ness they should have delivered them. The suit is for compensation for deterioration by fall in market during this interval; on the actual depreciation on account of the fall in price, there is no difference of opinion.2. The difference is that, on the one hand Shri Nevaskar J. applying the principles contained in Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, holds that the depreciation in the value of the goods was neither a direct consequence of the delay on the part of the administrati...
Johilla Coalfields Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR137(MP)
PANDEY, J. - Under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :(i) Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of this case, the original assessment order passed on March 21, 1953, was barred by time ?(ii) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether on the above facts and circumstances of the case, this plea of limitation was open to the assessee to be taken in the subsequent proceedings after the cancellation of the said assessment order and whether the reassessment order passed on November 17, 1954, is bad in law ?The facts of the case giving rise to the two questions under reference are not in dispute. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on the business of mining coal at Birsinghpur in district Shahdol, which formed a part of the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh. Since the companys income for the assessment year 1943-44 (acc...
MohiuddIn Mohommad DIn Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP265
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application, ostensibly under Article 226 (and under Article 227 in the alternative) of the Constitution for a direction on the Revenue Commissioner, Bhopal, not to implement his order dated 12th March, 1956, setting aside an alleged settlement of about 380 acres in a village called Nibbookheda on pagras, a class of tenure, in which lands are given on progressively increasing rent, for a long term, for being brought under cultivation. The ground urged here is that the lands were not held under the Bhopal Land Revenue Act, and, as such, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction. Possibly, according to the petitioner, the forest authorities had jurisdiction but they have not acted. 2. The petitioner's case is that in January 1949 he was given a seven years lease of about 380 acres of forest land in village Nibbookheda, which, by virtue of various orders, become a reserve forest -- 'a forest village' and was in 1947, transferred from Khalsa or revenue charg...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »