Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Beharilal Chaurasiya Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP75
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a person who holds stage carriage permits for certain routes including Chhatarpur-Damoh route within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, rewa. The applicant seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the State Transport Authority passed on 26-11-1959 in the following circumstances.2. On 15-1-1958 one Ramnath Pande, claiming himself to be the Vice-President of Sagar Transport Development Company of Chhatarpur, tiled an application under Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Regional Transport Authority on behalf of his Company for the transfer of the Company's permit for Chhatarpur-Damoh route in favour of the petitioner Company, praying that the name of the petitioner Company be entered in permit No. 50 held by the Sagar Transport Development Company in respect of Chhatarpur-Damoh route.The petitioner agreed to this transfer of the permit. On 6-2-1...
Firm Jagmohanlal Ramnath Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP298
Shrivastava, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 31-5-1958. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order.2. Three houses belonging to the petitioner were sold in auction sale in 1956 for recovery of arrears of income-tax. He applied under Rule 29 of Schedule II, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1954, for setting aside the sale on the ground that there were material irregularities in conductingthe sale. The application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the 17th, October, 1956 and the sales were confirmed on 22-10-1956. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue in which he impleaded only the State Government. Subsequently, on 29-1-1957 he sought leave to implead the auction-purchasers (respondents 4 and 5) also as respondents to the appeal. On this date, the appeal was barred by time and so the petitioner also filed an application under Sect...
Jawahar theatres Private Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kasturi Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP102
ORDERP.K. Tare, J.1. This revision under Section 115 Civil P. C, is by the plaintiff against the order, dated 20-8-1959, passed by Shri A. K. Pandey, Second Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 135-A of 1959 holding that the valuation of the relief of injunction claimed in the plaint at Rs. 500/-was inadequate and that the real valuation would be Rs. 47,400/-. Although originally the trial Judge demanded court-fees on the valuation of Rs. 47,400/-, the learned Judge, by a later order, held that he could not demand court-fees, as he had no jurisdiction to try the suit on the valuation as found.Therefore, he ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10, C. P. C. That order was passed on 28-8-1959. Although that order may be appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(a), C. P. C., revision under Section 115, C. P.C., would be competent against the previous order, dated 20-8-1959.2. The parties entered into an agreement, dated 26th July, 19...
Pohap Singh Bhamarsingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ673
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind was trying Tejsingh accused, Pohap Singh petitioner stood surety and executed a bail bond for Rs. 2000/- for his appearance. On June 22, 1959 Tejsingh appeared in the Court but on the next date of hearing, which was June 23, he did not appear. Bail bond was forfeited and notice to show cause why the penalty should not be recovered from the surety was issued to him. On the 29th April the surety appeared and prayed that a non-bailable warrant be issued. That was done, The surety got him rearrested and the trial proceeded further. However, after hearing the surety, the trial Judge ordered recovery of Rs. 500/- from him.2. It is urged by Shri Nagarkar that bail bond could not be forfeited on the 2nd June nasmuch as no prior notice had been given to the surety. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. It seems clear to me that Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates two Stages:1. Proof to the satisfaction o...
Umaraosingh Daulatsingh Vs. Ramgopal Ramnarayan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP9
H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. The applicant Umraosingh, who is the surviving defendant in a suit by the opponents, has been sentenced under Order 39 Rule 2(3) C.P.C., for disobedience of a temporary injunction order. He had gone to the superior Court against the order itself but it has been maintained. Against the order of punishment, he went up in appeal which has also been dismissed. Now he has come up in revision alleging that for one thing, he was acting in a new capacity, and he was not interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, hut was entering property that had been in his possession from his father. 2. This case raises questions, as to whether a person charged with disobedience of an injunction order could question the facts on which the order had been passed; and secondly, whether the person who had been restrained in one capacity could disobey the order, and plead that he was doing so in another capacity. 3. Though the facts of the suit are somewhat complicated, those relevant ...
Vinayak Dattatraya Vs. Hasanali Haji Nazarali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP6
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the defendant in a money suit, objecting to the order of the Civil Judge that it was not necessary to impound for assessment of stamp duty, a deed of gift produced by the plaintiff as the basis of his right to sue, and that it was admissible without stamp duty. Though this is only a matter arising between the Government and the plaintiff in regard to taxation, the present case raises important questions regarding the significance of the words 'admitted into evidence' in Section 36 of the Stamp Act, the real meaning of the words 'value of the property as set forth in such instrument' in Article 33 in the Schedule of the Stamp Act, and in general, the significance of Sections 27, 61 and 64 of the said Act.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff brought this suit as the present owner of a running business by virtue of a deed of gift from the original owner, who was no other than his father. A gift-deed was referred to...
Ramibai W/O Madhosingh Vs. Nathu and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP25; 1961CriLJ94
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge Ratlam on an application in revision by the complainant in a case before the first class Magistrate. The case itself ended in acquittal but the applicant's grievance is in regard to an order passed subsequently, presumably in exercise of inherent power, for maintaining status quo before the starting of the present case to the effect that the complainant should be removed from the house in dispute and the accused persons allowed to re-occupy it. The case raises several important issues regarding the existence and the extent, of inherent power of subordinate criminal courts, the circumstances in which they can be invoked, and the manner of enquiry necessary before any order under inherent jurisdiction can be passed.2. The relevant facts are that the applicant Ramibai gave first information report to the Police alleging that the non-applicants Nathu and Kalu, who are father and son, and their wives, ail entered her...
Jabalpur Transport Development Co., Partnership Firm Vs. State Transpo ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP23
Pandey, J.1. The petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the condition imposed in an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur (respondent 2) dated 27-9-1958 to the effect that a grant to the petitioner of a stage carriage permit for the Jabalpur-Mandla via Berela-Niwas route (hereinafter called the route) would stand cancelled if the appeal filed by Messrs. Sheikh Rasool Motor Transport Company (respondent 3) is allowed by the State Transport Appellate Authority (Respondent 1). The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order of the State Transport Appellate Authority dated 25-1-1960 whereby the aforesaid appeal was allowed.2. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute,' are these. The respondent 3 had applied for and obtained a stage carriage permit for the route to be operated on timings to be fixed subsequently. It transpired that the timings so fixed conflicted with the timings of another permit for the route. On a r...
Mojiya Ratna Bhil Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP10; 1961CriLJ89
Krishnan, J.1. The appellant Mojiya s/o Ralan Bhil (25) of Sagur Bhagur, Thana Gogava, has been convicted under Section 302 I. P.C., for the murder of Ganpat Ahir (a fellow villager) on the night of 3-12-1958 while he was walking towards his village Sagur Bhagur from the bus stop at village Temarna about two miles away, by hitting him several times with a knife, with the intention, of killing him, for the purpose and relieving Him of most of the sum of about 800/- and odd which he was bringing home from a merchant at Khargone. The learned Sessions Judge has awarded the lesser penalty of life imprisonment, because:'Ganpat who was advised by numerous witnesses not to undertake a journey at night with money, yet undertook the journey without heeding their advice, and gave a cause and temptation to the accused to take recourse to this ghastly crime, and also in view of the fact that the accused committed this crime out of total poverty and desperation.' He himself had denied everything, an...
Mishrilal Laxmichand Vs. Manik Chand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP34
Sharma, J.1. This is a defendant's First Appeal against the judgment passed on 13-3-1957 under Order 34 Rule 3 (Sub-r. 3 of R. 5?) Civil Procedure Code, by the District Judge Guna in Civil Original Suit No. 8 of 1954.2. A preliminary decree was passed in the aforesaid case on 18-7-1955 by the District Judge Guna. The decree directed the defendant to pay, within four months of the date of the decree, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for principal, the sum of Rs. 1,618/- for interest on the said principal and such interest as might become due during this period together with Rs. 1137-14-0 for the costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff. The decree further directed that in default of payment of the aforesaid amount the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the principal sum together with interest and costs by sale of the mortgaged property Or a sufficient part thereof and shall for this purpose he entitled to apply to the Court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property.3. The amo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »