Madhya Pradesh Court October 1961 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.
K.P. Choudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP102
Dixit, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the recovery of Rs. 51,500/- as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner has been filed in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner's bids at an auction of two parts of coupe No. 1, Hulki, of Bargi Range were accepted by the Chief Conservator of Forests. Thereafter some dispute arose between the petitioner and the Forest Department about the marking of the trees according to the 'material notified' at the time of the auction. The dispute was not settled to the satisfaction of the petitioner. The petitioner aVers that on account of this dispute he refused to complete the contract or to pay the first instalment in respect of the forest contract. According to the State, the applicant actually signed the contract (exhibited at page 61 of the paper-book) and also furnished security for the same. On behalf of the State the contract was signed not by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Rewa, bu...
Narayansingh Jugrajsingh Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP280; 1962MPLJ281
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This is an application for review of an order dated 20-8-1959 by which Miscellaneous Petition No. 254 of 1957, was dismissed. That petition was directed against an order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, dated 8th February, 1957, whereby its own earlier order dated 15th February, 1951, confirming the sale of malik-makbuza plot No. 32 of village Gorakh-pur, together with a house standing thereon, was reviewed, the confirmation of sale was set aside and a fresh confirmation of that sale was interdicted.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the order dated 20th August, 1959, which was passed on a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution, cannot, in the absence of any power conferred by the statute, be reviewed at all. Reliance is placed upon In Re, prahlad Krishna, ILR (1951) Bom 181: (AIR 1951 Bom 25) (FB) and Hajee Suleman v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, (S) AIR 1955 Madh-B 108. These cases lend soma support to the ...
Manager Hindusthan Journals, Private Limited Vs. Govind Ram Sawal Ram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP25; [1962(4)FLR520]; (1962)IILLJ242MP; 1962MPLJ437
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application in the alternative under Section 115, C.P:C. and Article 227 of the Constitution by the employer, from the appellate order by the District Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, affirming the order of the Payment of Wages Authority under Section 15 of the Act. Two of the questions for consideration are ones of form though still Important in view of thefrequency with which they arise. Firstly, whether application of this type should not be filed straightway as one in revision under Section 115, C.P.C. without bringing inArticle 227 of the Constitution: Secondly, whether the petition becomes ineffective because of the non-mention ct the application of the Payment of Wages Act to the wages in the establishments covered by the M. B. Shops and Establishments Act. On the merits the questions are, whether a claim for leave salary under Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, is a claimfor wages as defined in Section 2(v...
Narayan Keshav Dandekar Vs. R.C. Rathi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP17; 1963MPLJ709
Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of quo-warrato submitted by the petitioner who is a registered voter in the electoral roll maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Indore, owns House No. 13 in Jati Colony Indore and is a tax-payer paying annual taxes to the Indore City Municipal Corporation. The petition is directed against one RadhaKrishna Champalal Rattii who nas oeen appointed as the Assessment and Estate Officer in the indore City Municipal Corporation. Indore City Municipal Corporation is impleaded as the second opponent.2. The petitioner's case is that opponent Radha-Krishna Rathi had been employed in the Indore Municipality as a Personal Assistant to the Commissioner when the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954, was in force and was applicable to the City Municipality of Indore, on 28-10-1955 Madhya Bharat Municipal Corporation Act of 1956 came into force and this Act was applied to the city of Indore on 31-10-19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›