Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
State of M.P. Vs. Abdul Rashid and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ161
ORDERP.R. Sharma, J.1. This case comes up before me on a report made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Jubbulpore recommending that the order dated 9.3.1959 passed by the Magistrate First Class Jubbulpore, in Criminal Case No. 2917 of 1958 be set aside and that the proceedings in connection therewith be quashed.2. The only point involved in the present case is whether betel leaves are 'articles of food' for human consumption within the meaning of Section 210(1)(i) of the Cantonments Act, which runs as under:Section 210(i):Vendors of any medicines, drugs or articles of food or drink for human consumption (other than the flesh of pigs, milk, butter, bread, biscuits, cake, fruit, vegetables, aerated or other portable waters or ice or ice-cream) which are of a perishable nature.3. By the word 'food' is meant what one takes into the system to maintain, life and growth and to supply (wastes ailment nourishment, viotuals, or what one eats as opposed to drink. (Vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary...
Dadulal Hanumanlala Vs. Smt. Deo Kunwar Bai W/O Shantilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1963MP86
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against the order of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Durg, setting aside the order of the executing Court dated 19-7-1956 ordering delivery of possession of suit lands to tne decree-holder.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are these. Plaintiff, Dadulal, had filed a suit for specific performance of contract against one Mantrial (defendant No. 1), who had contracted to transfer the suit lands to the plaintiff by a contract dated 9-11-1946 (Ex. P-1) but instead of transferring the land to him he transferred the same to Smt. Deokuwarbai and Shantilal (defendants 2 and 3). These defendants were, therefore, joined as purchasers of the land subsequent to the contract in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, bound by it. The suit was decreed and the decree was maintained in second appeal also before the High Court. In pursuance of the decree all the 3 judgment-debtors (defendants) were called upon to execute a sale-deed but ha...
Daryasingh Harisingh and anr. Vs. Kalma Nihala
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP179
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. This second appeal involves a question regarding limitation, It arises out of a suit for possession brought by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of land situated in the village Titranya bearing Khasra No. 53 measuring 11.1 acres and assessed to the revenue of Rs. 3-12-9. The suit was based on plaintiff's title and consequent right of the plaintiff to possess the same. There were no allegations as to when and how the defendant came into occupation and by what right. The cause of action was stated to be a demand for possession made by the plaintiff on 11-12-1954 by means of a registered notice and its non-compliance. Plaintiff claimed possession and mesno profits at Rs. 100/- per annum.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants who denied plaintiff's title to the land and asserted their own title and possession since generations. They expressed their ignorance regarding the existence of Patta of that land in plaintiff's name and the circumstances in which it was...
Dayaram Bhagirathi Satnami Vs. Jokhuram Munda Sonar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP393
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit against the defendant-non-applicant claiming Rs. 450/-with costs. The defendant-nonapplicant made a counterclaim of Rs. 196/- and costs. On 29-7-58 the plaintiff was absent and consequently his suit was dismissed in default. As regards the counter-claim the Court held the plaintiff to be ex parte and after recording the statement of the defendant found the claim proved and passed a decree in his favour for Rs. 196/- with costs.2. On 5-9-1958 the plaintiff applied for setting aside the ex parte decree as also for setting aside the dismissal of his suit in default of his appearance. By order dated 2-2-1959 the trial Court held that the plaintiff-applicant had made out a good case for the restoration of the suit but held that even after restoration it would have to be dismissed because the provisions of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act had not been complied with.3. Under Order 8, Rule 6(2) of the C...
Agricultural Income-tax Commissioner Vs. Jethmal Girdharilal.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1960
Reported in: [1962]44ITR664(MP)
DIXIT C.J. - These case and Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 121 of 1958 relate to the assessment of Messrs. Jethmal Girdharilal to agricultural income-tax under the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, for the assessment year 1953-54. The assessing authority determined the amount of tax and super tax payable by the assessee at Rs. 34,644-8-0. This amount was, however, reduced in appeal to the Revenue Commissioner to Rs. 5,470. The assessee, however, felt aggrieved by this assessment and moved the Revenue Commissioner under section 23 of the Act for a reference to this court of certain questions of law arising out of the order of assessment. The Revenue Commissioner granted this application in part and has referred to this court only one question for decision, namely, 'whether assessment under Bhopal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, can be made on the applicants for the year 1953-54 on the basis of their previous years income for the year 1952-53 in view of the fact that the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›