Madhya Pradesh Court December 1961 Judgments
Bansilal Babhutram Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ681
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an application in revision by a seller of milk who has been convicted Under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: and in the view of at least one previous conviction for a similar offence, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2000/- with further imprisonment in default, for six months.The appeal having been dismissed, he has come up In revision alleging as ground of law that he was selling, neither pure cow's milk nor pure buffalo's milk but a mixture, for which no standard has been prescribed. The factual allegations are that though he had thirty seers of milk at his shop, it was not for sale and again, the data found by the public analyst are not worthy of credence.This application touches on one or two misunderstandings which seem to be common, it is therefore convenient to deal with the matter at some length so that subordinate Criminal Courts in the State dealing the cases may be under no confusi...
Tag this Judgment!Deoraj Bhikamchand Surana and anr. Vs. Rent Controlling Authority and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP179
Dixit, C.J. 1. The petitioners in this case pray that an order of the Rent Controlling Authority, Durg, allotting a house belonging to them and situate on Chitnavis Road, Durg, to the opponent S'hri Mahobe be quashed by a writ of certiorari. 2. The house in question was first tenanted by Kumari Kusum Kaushai, Education Organiser, who was transferred from Durg some time in February,1960. As she did not vacate the house on her transfer, the petitioners 'instituted a suit for ejectment against her, inter alia, on the ground that they needed the house for their own residence. A compromise decree was passed in this suit On 11th July, 1960. In pursuance of this decree Kumari Kaushai vacated the house ultimately on 15th July, 1961. The petitioners then commenced the work of repairing the house and reconstructing it in some parts So as to suit their own convenience. On 15th July, 1961 itself the Rent Controlling Authority, Durg initiated proceedings for the allotment of the house and issued a ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Brijendra Singh S/O Raja Prithvi Singh Vs. Buti Saha S/O Bodh Raj ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP377; 1962MPLJ1044
1. These three First Appeals (Appeals Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1959) are directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Guna, While rejecting the application of the plaintiff for setting aside the award, the Additional District Judge, disposed of the whole case by pronouncing judgment, and, passing a decree according to the terms of the award. Our decision will go yern all the three appeals.2. In short the facts of this case are that the plaintiff filed three suits in the District Court, Guna, against the defendant on the basis of some Hundis executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the suits were resisted on the ground that the matter in dispute had been referred to an arbitration, consisting of three persons, that the award had been given and the defendant prayed that the award may be directed to be filed and decree passed in terms of it.3. The trial Court directed the award to be fifed and gave an opportunity to parties (the award was in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saraswatibai W/O. Himmatsingh Vs. Md. Idrakuddin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP234; 1963MPLJ96
P.K. Tare, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant against the decree, dated, 24-11-1959, passed by Shri V.D. Joshi, Additional District Judge, Betul, in Civil Appeal No. 6-A of 1957, affirming the decree, dated, 18-7-1957, passed by Shri G.K. Parashar, Second Additional Civil Judge, Betul, in Civil Suit No. 4-A of 1957.2. The respondent executed a registered sale deed, dated, 10-9-1947 in favour of the appellant regarding certain malik makbuza land, having an area of 19.40 acres, for a consideration of Rs. 1900/-. The sale deed was probably executed at the time of partition of the country, when the respondent was probably scared on account of his anxiety for his safety. That was undoubtedly an out and out sale deed, although the respondent's contention was that it was a mortgage. However, he did not make any attempt to establish his allegation about the transaction being a mortgage.3. The appellant leased back the fields to the respondent on 15-9-1947. The lease was for the agricultural ...
Tag this Judgment!Central India Chemicals Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Railways
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP301
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree dismissing his suit for compensation, in respect of a consignment belonging to him, of a boiler and attached parts, carried by the Railway from Kanpur to Sehore, parts of which on arrival were found to have got broken, and parts missing. The questions for decision at this stage are,(i) Whether the suit was bad, (a) for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 77, Railways Act, the claim being preferred in writing more than after six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage; (b) for non-joinder, as party, either of the two railway administrations i.e. Northern Railway administration to which the goods were delivered by the consignor and the Central Railway administration over which the goods had to be carried during the latter part of the transport; (c) for limitation under Article 30, and the effect, if any, of the defendant's not having pleaded that the suit had been filed beyond the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Vasudeo Vs. Gram Panchayat and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP177; 1963MPLJ23
Sheo Dayal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of registration fee on animals and heads -of cattle sold in the Market of the Gram Panchayat, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur. It is contended that what is charged from the purchasers in the said cattle market is really a 'tax'--not 'fee'--and is ultra vires the C. P. and Berar Panchayafe Act No. 1 of 1947. Section 42 (1) (c) of the Act empowers a Gram Panchayat to charge 'fee' on sale of animals but does not authorise it to charge 'sales tax.'. The section runs thus :'42, (1) With the approval of the District Council, and subject to rules made under this Act, a Gram Panchayat may, by a majority of two-thirds of its members, impose any of the following taxes, tolls, fees or rates : (a) tolls On vehicles, pack-animals and porters bringing goods for sale into the Gram Panchayat area; (b) fees on persons exposing goods for sale in any market or place belonging to or under the control of the Gr...
Tag this Judgment!Tirjugi Sitaram Vs. Badlu Prasad Bheruprashad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP361; 1962MPLJ183
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration in this second appeal relating to execution proceedings is whether the amount of gratuity payable to a worker in a Cotton Mill by his employer constitutes 'wages' of a labourer, as contemplated under Section 60(h) of C. P. Code and as such is not liable to attachment.2. The executing court before whom the question was raised held that such gratuity payable to a Mill worker constitutes his wages and as such is exempt from attachment.3. On appeal, the first appellate court came to the contrary conclusion and held that it is not wages and is attachable. That court directed the amount which had been called and lying in deposit in court pending consideration of this question, to be paid to the decree-holder.4. The judgment-debtor appeals.5. In AIR 1945 Bom 119, Jivan Lal v. Ramtuji Bhaiji, his Lordship Sen J., of the Bombay High Court had to consider whether the bonus, which a labourer in a Textile Mill in Ahmedabad was to...
Tag this Judgment!Loonkaran Parakh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP196; 1962MPLJ297
Dixit, C. J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the applicants challenge the validity of certain amendments made in Rules 30, 38 and 45 of the Rules for the assessment, collection and refund of octroi tax within the limits of Raipur Municipality. The amendments were made by Notification No. 52-776-XVIII-U, issued by the State Government on 14th March 1961 in the exercise of powers conferred by Sections 71, 76 and 85 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. The applicants pray that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the aforesaid notification in so far as it amends Rules 30, 38 and 45 and that a direction be issued to the respondents restraining them from giving effect to those amendments. 2. The petitioners are wholesale dealers in cloth, food-grains and other kirana goods doing business within the limits of Raipur Municipality. During the course of their business they import large quantities of goods within the munic...
Tag this Judgment!Buta Singh Shankar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP205
ORDERP.K. Tare, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the plaintiff against the order dated 7-7-1961, passed by Shri P.S. Rana Civil Judge Class II, Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 5-B of 1961, refusing to restore to file the suit.2. The petitioner filed a suit for restraining the respondent from recovering an amount of Rs. 2000/- regarding a forest contract. The petitioner alleged that something was due to him. At this stage, it is not necessary to consider the defence.3. The petitioner's suit came to be dismissed in default. He applied for restoration of the suit to file, but the trial Court refused to restore it. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate Court, by order, dated 27-4-1961 restored the suit to file upon certain conditions. The appellate Court imposed a condition precedent to the restoration of the suit by directing that the plaintiff should pay Rs. 30/- as costs to the Government Pleader or should deposit the same within a week ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnrao and ors. Vs. Deorao Yeshwantrao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP49; 1962MPLJ154
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. Bhaskarrao and Gopalrao were two brothers. Bhaskarrao instituted a suit in the Tehsil ot Shajapur (Revenue Suit No. 31/1994) on 26-8-38 under Section 325 of the Qanoon Maal against (1) Gopalrao (2) his Mukhtar Aam, Deorao and (3) his wife Ramabai. in that suit a decree for restoration of possession of agricultural land as also mesne profits at Rs. 75/- per year was claimed, jointly and severally against all the three defendants. A decree in that suit was passed in favour of the plaintiff for possession as also for mesne profits at the rate of four times the annual rent 'against the defendanis'.2. The present civil suit was instituted by Deorao (defendant No. 2 of the revenue suit) on the allegation that since the revenue decree was executed against him and the decree-holder sought sale of his properties, ha had to pay Rs. 2100/- in all to the decree-holder of that decree. In the present suit Deorao claimed contribution from the other two defendants in the revenue suit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »