Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Karansingh Mallaji Vs. Giriraj Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP98; 1961CriLJ511
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application in revision by a supratdar of certain property in charge of the Court. When on his own request the Court relieved him and took over the property there was a shortage. Its value has been fixed after dueenquiry by the Magistrate at Rs. 954-6-0. The applicant has accordingly been called upon to make good this loss by depositing it in the Court. Presumably distress warrant has been issued. Meanwhile, the applicant went to the Sessions Judge who has dismissed his application. He has come here with what he describes as grounds of law invalidating the order of the Magistrate. The first is, that the bond not having been taken in the Court but by the police, the Court was incompetent to order a forfeiture; secondly, that there was no direction on the applicant supratdar to produce in Court or before any court-servant the goods entrusted; thirdly, that the bond itself was not for the production of the goods or for payment to Government; in fact, i...
Dauram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1960
Reported in: [1962]13STC562(MP)
ORDERT.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This order governs the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 13 of 1959 also. Both these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been filed by the petitioner impugning the assessments by the Sales Tax Authorities. The present case refers to the period 1st June, 1947, to nth October, 1948, and the connected case refers to the period 1st November, 1948, to 31st October, 1949.2. The undisputed facts in these petitions are these. The petitioner is working as a goldsmith. He sells either ready-made ornaments or ornaments made on the orders of customers after purchasing gold from gold dealers. He sometimes prepares ornaments for customers out of the gold supplied by them and adding some of his own gold, if necessary. The petitioner did not get himself registered as a dealer and the Sales Tax Authorities issued a notice to him on 17th May, 1950, to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 8 of the Central Provinces and Berar ...
Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP104; 1961CriLJ513
N.M. Golvalker, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section 363, I. P. C., by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1960. He was also charged under Section 366, I. P. C.f but for want of evidence to substantiate that charge he was acquitted of the same.2. Briefly stated the accused was charged for kidnapping Kumari Ivy alias Munni from the guardianship of her father Camelias alias Baboo under the following circumstances. Kumari Ivy (P. W. 1) was a resident of village Chhedka, where she lived with her father Carnelias (P. W. 2). He had his cultivation and had his house on One of his fields a couple of furlongs away from the abadi of the village. The girl had her education for some time in a village about a mile from Chhedka but since July 1959 she was taking, her education in a Missions Girls School at Khandwa where she lived with her maternal uncle, Bhaiyalal, in one of the quarters known as Tapal Chawl.In another quarter of, the sam...
Kanhaiyalal Bahadursingh Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: [1962]13STC615(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Bhutt, J. (as he then was) whereby he dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the opponents from proceeding to make any assessment under Section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.2. The matter arises in this way. The appellant is a dealer in manganese ore. In respect of sales of manganese ore during the period from 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954, the Sales Tax Officer, Gondia, by his order on 26th July, 1955, found the gross turnover to be Rs. 6,55,044-3-4 and held that the appellant was entitled to a deduction to the extent of this amount of turnover under Section 27-A (1)(b) of the Act. What the Sales Tax Officer really meant was that under the aforesaid provision the sales being in the course of inter-State trade or commerce were not liable to be taxed. Thereafter, the successor of the Sa...
Ballabhdas Saligram and anr. Vs. Thakur Parmal Singh Rai Padam Singh a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP36
Shiv Dayal, J.1. Shri Swami Saran heard. This appeal arises out of a suit for setting aside a de-tree passed by the revenue Courts (Commissioner and Board of Revenue) under Section 312 of the Qua-noon Mal. That suit was instituted by Parmal Singh and Madho Singh against Ballabh Das, Saligram and Shankar Singh initially. During the pendency of that suit Shankarsingh died. San-tosh Singh and Chhata Singh, his minor sons, were brought on record instead of the deceased. An ex parte decree was passed in favour of Parmal Singh and Madho Singh. Execution was taken out of that decree. Objections were raised by Santosh Singh and Chhatar Singh, but they were overruled. Thereafter Parmal Singh and Madho Singh proceeded in execution against Ballabhdas and Saligram alone; they did not proceed against Santosh Singh and Chhatar Singh,This time Ballabhdas and Saligram raised the same objections, but they remained unsuccessful in all the revenue Courts. Thereafter this civil suit was instituted allegin...
Madhav Rao Balwantrao Daphale Vs. Bhagwandas Surajmal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP138
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a second appeal from a decree for ejectment passed against the petitioner. The only ground urged before me is that the notice of eviction was not according to law inasmuch as by the notice, tenancy was determined on1-6-1958 when the tenancy had commenced on2-3-1953. There is no substance in this revision. In the first place, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply because there was a contract to the contrary. In the rent note itself there was a condition that the landlord would be entitled to evict a tenant after, giving one month's notice.Shri Inamdar's argument is that there is no contract to the contrary as regards the second part of Section 106, that the notice must expire with the end of a month of the tenancy. This argument is devoid of force. When there is an agreement as to the period of notice, it is a contract to the contrary for all purposes of Section 106. The second provision requiring the notice to expire with the end of a tenan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›