Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Sardar Santsingh Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC76(MP)
ORDERT.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. The petitioner, Sardar Santsingh, was convicted in a summary trial by the Judge-Magistrate, Hoshangabad, of an offence under Section 24(1)(a) read with Section 8(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 (in default, 45 days' simple imprisonment) and also to a further fine of Rs. 1,125 at the rate of Re. 1 per day from 1st June 1947, to 26th July, 1950 (in default, simple imprisonment for six months). He went up in appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, who dismissed it. He has, therefore, filed this petition for revision against the conviction and the sentence.2. The petitioner dealt in timber, charcoal and firewood during the period 1st June, 1949, to 26th July, 1950, but did not register himself as a dealer. The prosecution case was that during that period his turnover exceeded Rs. 5,000 per year and he was, therefore, liable to register himself...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mst. Shrimati Deobati and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP245; 1960CriLJ1096
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a reference under Section438 of the Cr. P. C. made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate be set aside and Shrimati Deobati be granted at least Rs. 20 p.m. and her daughter Rs. 5/ p.m. as maintenance with effect from 24-2-1958 (the date of her application under Section488 of the Cr. P. C.).2. It appears that Shrimati Deobati was married to Dashrathprasad in the year 1948. Thereafter in the year 1953 Dashrathprasad took another wife it seems that there arose some dispute between the husband and the first wife which led to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights instituted by the husband. A decree was passed in that suit on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The terms of the compromise were these:(i) That the defendant shall restitute to the plaintiff the conjugal company by the defendant No. 3. (ii) That the plaintiff shall keep the defendant No. 3 separate from his other wif...
Ram Kumar Dani Agarwal Vs. Jeevanlal S/O Dhuma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP288
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. This revision is directed against an order, rejecting the application of the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue the defendants for the benefit of all persons who may be interested in the suit.2. The plaintiff nominated Jcevanlal, Jhadu and Krishna to represent the numerous persons residing in the vicinity of his tank known as 'Naya-talao' and its embankments, situate at Raipur, bearing Khasra Nos. 400 and 401 respectively. The allegations in the plaint arc that in or about the month of October 1955, the above-named three defendants wrongfully planted certain trees on theplaintiff's land without any right and without hisknowledge or consent.When the plaintiff came to know of this on or about October 5, 1955, he tried to remove them whereupon the defendants came to the spot and asserted that the trees had been planted by them and they would not allow him to remove them at any cost and further they also asserted that ...
Dhaniram Bhaiyalal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1962MP43
Naik, J. 1. This is an application for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to the application are these. Six accused persons, namely, Sultansingh, Saboo, Bisram, Laxman, Suratsingh and Durga, were prosecuted in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, under Sections 452, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code for having entered the house of Achhelal on the night between the 6th and 7th August 1958 and for having committed dacoity therein, armed with deadly weapons. One other accused, Dhaniram, was charged under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code in the same Court in relation to the same dacoity. The latter offence, namely, under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, was triable by a jury, while the other offences, namely, under Sections 452, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, were triable by the judge himself.3 The offences under Sections 452, 395 and 397 o...
K.P. Joshi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP239; [1960(1)FLR54]
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is submitted on 28-12-1956 by the petitioner K. P. Joshi, an Ex-Sub-Inspector of Excise against the State of Madhya Pradesh for the issue of a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other kind of writ or direction for quashing the order of the Commissioner, Customs and Excise, dated 25-2-1955 directing the retrenchment of the petitioner on the ground that he belonged to the staff of the customs department which was being wound up due to abolition of custom duty in the State of Madhya Bharat, and for direction that the petitioner ought to be treated as being in service in the same condition in which he was on 31-3-1955.2. The petitioner's case in brief is that the petitioner, who had been employed as Excise Sub-Inspector in the erstwhile Holkar State prior to its merger in the State of Madhya Bharat, had received special training at Nagpur for the job; that after merger he continued to work in that capacity in Mad...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›