Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Sansarchand Deshraj Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP322
Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act by which the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No, 26-A of 1959 staying the proceedings in the suit under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is challenged.2. The main contention urged on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is that it is too late now for the applicant to ask for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter Called the 'Act') inasmuch as he has already taken 'other steps in the proceedings' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Act.3. It is necessary to state the facts briefly to appreciate the contentions of the parties. The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of damages on account of breach of contract for plying ferries from two ghats. The plaintiff has claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 14,838/-. He alleges that he has paid Rs. 31,000/- towards the lease amount of Rs. 39,666/-in respect of one gha...
State of M.P. Vs. Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1960
Reported in: [1960]12STC333(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 23 (1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, by the Board of Revenue, and the questions presented for decision are :-(1) Whether the assessee-company who purchased during the course of two assessment periods building materials (iron and cement) on several occasions and sold the said materials from time to time to contractors, who were constructing buildings for the assessee-dealer, is a dealer within the meaning of Section 4 of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act ?(2) Whether the assessee is liable to pay sales tax on such sales ?(3) Whether the Board of Revenue could take oral submissions on question of fact into consideration when there was a clear finding of the Sales Tax Commissioner regarding frequency of sales and profits made by the assessee on the sales in question?2. The questions arise in the following circumstances. The Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon, gave a contract for the construction ...
Firm Ramachandra Mathuralal Vs. Kalusingh Nathraj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP245
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff in a suit from the order of the trial Judge summarily refusing to record a compromise without investigating the defendant's allegations thatit had been brought about by misrepresentation. The applicant wants at this stage that the allegations of the; defendant justifying the non-recording of the award should be investigated; whereas the defendant-non-applicant urges that whatever the merits of his allegations, the conduct of the plaintiff itself shows that he had tacitly repudiated the compromise. The question is of considerable theoretical interest though ill practice it might arise only very rarely.A party to a compromise has, after entering into it, continued prosecuting his suit, leading evidence, even without mentioning the compromise; can be at a later stage fall back on it and invite the Court to record it, or is he deemed by his own conduct to have repudiated it and is as such not entitled later on to ...
N.S. Gandiwal S/O Gopal Swarup Bhatnagar Vs. State Through Anti-corrup ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ670
P.R. Sharma, J.1. The appellant N.S. Gandiwal was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge Gwalior under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He has appealed to this Court against his conviction and sentence.2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows: One Bhag-wandas Khatri was living in house No. 730 known as 'Bachhes Latif's House' as a tenant of the Custodian of Evacuee Property on a rent of Rs. 4/- per mensem. It appears that he, in violation of the terms of the tenancy, sublet a portion of the premises occupied by him to certain other persons. A notice Ex.P. 19 was served on Bhagwandas by the Custodian Department requiring him to attend the Custodian's office on 8-8-1955. On that date the accused appellant put up a note Ex.P. 20 before the Assistant Custodian in which he expressed the opinion that he was not inclined to believe that the premises were worth only Rs. 4/- per mensem.He, therefor...
Maghanamal Narumal and ors. Vs. Moolchand Gianchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP193; 1962MPLJ112
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, No. 70 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act).2. Maghanmal applied on 9-9-1952, to the Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the 1951 Act for adjustment of his debts. In the list of creditors he mentioned the name of Mulchand with the remark that the owed him nothing still he (Mulchand) demanded repayment of an alleged loan. Other creditors are not concerned with this revision.3. Mulchand had made a separate application under Section 10 of the 1951 Act making a claim of Rs. 5,500/- against Maghanmal. On 1-5-1953, that petition was dismissed on the ground that Maghanmal had already filed a petition under Section 5 of the Act. Thereupon, on 16-9-1953, Mulchand made an application to the Tribunal in Maghanmal's case, for the determination of his debt. Maghanmal resisted Mulchand's claim. Shri S.L. Chopta, learned Civil Judge First Class, acting as the tribun...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kunte Brothers
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1960
Reported in: [1962]13STC366(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P., under Section 13(1) of the M.B. Sales Tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act). The questions referred to for decision are :(1) Whether on finding that the accounts produced at the time of first assessment were incorrect and did not include all transactions the assessing authority is (under Section 10 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act) empowered to make best judgment assessment for the whole turnover estimated for the period of previous assessment or he can only make additional assessment of items proved to have escaped assessment previously.(2) Whether assessment of the assessing authority under Section 8(4) (a) is according to law in the circumstances of the case.(3) Whether it was incumbent on the assessing authority to have brought to the notice of the opposite party specific items which had escaped assessment and to have offered him an opportunity to rebut the evidence in regard to such specified i...
J. Harimal Oil Mills Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP148
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from an order, of Naik J. dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of a demand made on him under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules for payment of Rs. 1437/15/- as excise duty on about 20 tins of vegetable non-essential oils said to have been cleared by the appellant in the month of March 1956.2. The excise duty was imposed on 2-5-1956 by the Inspector, Central Excise, in charge of Oil Mills at Raipur under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and the Rules made thereunder. It seems that after the levy of the duty when the appellant protested against it he was advised by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jabalpur, to pay up the amount and appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur.Thereafter when the appellant preferred an appeal he was again asked to pay the amount of the duty and informed that his appeal would be considered only after...
Pathak (D.V.), Inspector, Shops and Establishments Vs. Ramchandra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ57MP
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on special leave, by the inspector of shops and establishments (Indore Corporation) from the judgment of acquittal passed by the magistrate, holding that though the respondent admittedly kept open his' shop on a 'closed day' for business to the customers, he was not guilty under Section 47(f) of the Madhya Bharat Shops and Establishments' Act for contravening Section 16(1) of that Act because he was not employing anybody under him to work at the shop, but was running it himself unassisted by any paid employee. The learned magistrate has read the word 'employer' in its grammatical or etymological meaning, which, according to him, had not been displaced by the special meaning attributed to it in the definition in Section 2(7) of the Act. In this, he followed the single Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Abid Ali v. State 1958-I L.L.J. 734 though a diametrically opposite view has been taken ...
Ratanlal Saligram and anr. Vs. Nathulal Pankarji Namdeo
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP108
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand under Order 43 Rule 1(u), of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the respondent's suit for the recovery of Rs. 612/-, the appellant inter alia pleaded repayment of the loan. On December 5, 1957, which was fixed for plaintiff's evidence, the defendant offered to the plaintiff to take Ganges water in his hand and swear that the defendant had not repaid the debt.Thereupon, the plaintiff threw a counter proposal offering the defendant to take Ganges water in his hand that he had nothing to pay to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs proposal was accepted by the defendant. The defendant then took the holy water in his hand before the Court and stated that he had repaid the entire debt due to the plaintiff and that he did not owe a single pie to him. The plaintiff accepted this statement and prayed for dismissal of his suit. The suit was accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.However, feeling himself aggrieved by...
Moolchand Kanhaiyalal Tiwari Vs. Nihalkaran Chhatra Karan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP199
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J. 1. The only question involved in this revision petition is whether the Court below is justified in staying the suit on the ground that one of the defendants is adjudicated an insolvent. The trial Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act directed the stay of the present suit. The suit is based on a promissory-note executed by defendant Ramchandra in the name of Ramachandra Rambhau Trivedi, Manager, Malwa Bhandar and in the signature Ramchandra mentioned after signing his own name 'for Malwa Bhandar Manager'. Plaintiff's case is that defendant No. 1 Nihalkaran is the proprietor of Malwa Bhandar.He filed the present suit against both the defendants and claimed decree against either of the defendants in the alternative. During the pendency of the suit Ramchandra, on his petition, was adjudicated insolvent. After the order of adjudication was passed Ramchandra presented a petition in the Court below invoking the jurisdict...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›