Madhya Pradesh Court July 1961 Judgments
Bhagwandas T. Mandaliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP131
Dixit, C.J. 1. The petitioner is engaged in the production and manufacture of certain medicinal and toilet goods dutiable under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. A licence was issued to him for the purpose under the Act. On 9th May 1960, the Collector, Raipur, issued to him a notice asking him to show cause why his licence should not be suspended because of a breach on his part of the conditions of the licence about manufacture of the goods and of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The notice mentioned, inter alia, that the petitioner's manufactory was not a contiguous unit and did not conform to the specifications laid down in Rules 22 and 23; that the preparation of 'Ark Kikar--a Unani, preparation--was in contravention of the conditions of the licence; that he had failed to maintain correct accounts as required by Rule 56; that the accounts of the consumption of rectified spirit maintained by him were not correct; and that he had ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Abdul Rehman Vs. State Through Police
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP317
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. The applicant has coma up from an order of the Magistrate forfeiting the entirety of his security of 1000/- in a bond under section 110 for the good behaviour of one Abdul Sattar. When the bond was in force, Abdul Sattar was charged and convicted for an offence under section 354, I. P. C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, Then both Abdul Sattar, and the surety that is, the present applicant were asked to show cause against the forfeiture of the bonds but while the bond of Abdul Sattar was forfeited only to the extent of 200/- out of 1000/-, the surety's bond has been forfeited in full. 2. The surety has come averring firstly, that it is very difficult for one person to keep control over the behaviour of another and therefore the bond should not have been forfeited; Secondly the security of the 'principal' has been forfeited in part and in accordance with the principles contained in Chanda Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Lah 32, the surety's bond shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Khan Multan Khan Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP337; 1963CriLJ629; 1963MPLJ566
1. This matter has come up for our opinion on the following two points which have been specifically formulated by Sen J. :'(1) Whether in view of Section 20 (g) Opium Act, a complaint filed by Excise Officer under the Opium Act can be deemed a case instituted as a case on police report as contemplated under Section 251 A, Criminal Procedure Code?(2) If it cannot be so deemed, whether following the wrong procedure would vitiate the trial?'2. The circumstances, giving rise to the aforesaid two questions, briefly stated, are these. On the report of a certain Excise Officer one Sardarkhan was convicted under Section 9 (a) and 9 (b) of the Opium Act. The Magistrate held the trial in the manner laid down under Section 251 A, Criminal Procedure Code. The accused unsuccessfully challenged his conviction before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur. This Court was, therefore, moved by a revision petition challenging the correctness of the conviction and it appears that it was during the cours...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmadnoor Roshan Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP133
Krishnan, J. 1. The petitioner who used to hold licenses for two firearms has come up under Article 226 from two orders of the licensing authority dated respectively, 2-1-1959 and 27-11-1959, the former cancelling the licenses during their currency for license year 1958-59 and directing the deposit of the firearms at the proper police station, and the latter refusing to renew the licenses after their expiry in due course on the 31st March, 1959, the licensee having applied for renewal in ignorance or in intentional suppression of the earlier order of cancellation. The two orders are interconnected in the sense that a renewal was practically impossible after the cancellation, unless it was established by the ex-licensee either that the cancellation wag unjustified or that the cause of the cancellation had been removed. The grievance is that the licensing authority acted without jurisdiction, as it did not give reasons in writing for the cancellation, and further, the refusal to renew wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ramcharan Tiwari Vs. Dist. Judge and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP220; (1962)ILLJ359MP
Dixit, C.J. 1. The petitioner in this case presented an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act before the competent authority for an order against the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 for payment of retrenchment compensation for him. According to the petitioner he was in the service of the said respondents for nearly 30 years; that on 29th September, 1959, non-applicant No. 5 the Bombay Garage, Jabalpur, intimated to him that his services were terminated from 30th September. 1939, and that his claim for payment of retrenchment compensation was not countenanced by the said opponents. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act rejected the petition holding that there was a dispute whether the applicant was in the service of the aforesaid opponents and whether his services had been terminated; that it had no jurisdiction to determine this dispute; and that the petitioner's remedy was before the Industrial Court. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the District Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Baghmal Keshrimal Vs. Firm Purshottam Amratlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP154
S.B. Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of an executionapplication.2. A decree was passed against the appellants in the Court at Ahmadabad and the same was transferred to the Court at Ujjain for execution. After the certificate for non-satisfaction was sent the decree was slightly modified in appeal. No fresh certificate was sent and the decree-holder sought to execute the decree according to the decree of the appellate Court. The appellant raised an objection to the continuance of the previous application on the ground that the transferee Court has no power to amend the execution petition. He also stated that the execution cannot proceed as it has not been properly signed by the decree-holder. There was another objection raised that the appellate Court had ordered the stay of the execution,3. The executing Court at Ujjain disallowed all the objections. He filed an appeal before the District Judge who has agreed with the executing Court and the matter is now in miscellaneous appeal befor...
Tag this Judgment!Gyasiram Kanhairam Vaishya Vs. Brijbhushandas Narayandas Vaishya and a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP237; 1963MPLJ16
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for redemption in favour of plaintiff-mortgagor, specifying the amount to be paid to the mortgagee, and, also the time within which such payment was to be made. The petitioner paid the amount so specified, but not within the specified time, though it was paid before a final decree debarring the mortgagor from his right to redeem was passed. The mortgagee-defendant also moved the court that because the plaintiff-mortgagor had not paid money within the time specified by Court, therefore, a decree for foreclosure be passed in his favour. The trial Count (Civil Judge First Class, Gwalior) by his order dated 18-4-1959, passed a decree for foreclosure. Against this, the plaintiff-mortgagor filed an appeal before the District Judge, Gwalior, on a court-fees of Rs. 20/-. The office of the District Judge raised an objection that the memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped. The District Judge on 4-5-1959, passed an order t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnarayan Triyoginarayan Trivedi and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP93
Dixit, C.J. 1. In this Letters Patent appeal with leave from a decision of Bhutt, J. (as he then was) in Second Appeal No. 764 of 1953, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Advocate General appearing for the opponent-State as to the competency of this appeal. Relying on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 106 of 1958, (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Patel Gayaprasad), the urged that the appeal was Incompetent under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent as the application for leave was not made immediately after the judgment was pronounced on 31st January 1957 as required by the rules made by this Court under Clause 27 of the Letters Patent; that the application for leave was filed on 6th February 1957; and that in these circumstances the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting leave to appeal.2. The reply of Mr. Dabir, learned counsel for the appellants, was that the judgment in Second Appeal No. 764 of 1953 was pronounced on a dat...
Tag this Judgment!Govardhanlal Nandlal Gupta and anr. Vs. Ramcharan Dalluram Sahu and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP176
Shrivastava, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners for a writ of ccrtiorari quashing the order dated 28-11-1960 passed by the respondent No. 3 as an Election Tribunal under Section 20-A of the M. P. Municipalities Act. 2. Petitioner No. 1, Goverdhanlal was duly elected as a member of the Municipal Committee, Bilaspur, on 25-5-1959, from Ward No. 10. Respondent No. 1, Ramcharan who had contested the election, filed an election petition before the respondent No. 3, challenging the validity of the election and also praying that in case the election was set aside, he should be declared as properly elected. The petitioner No. 2, Laxmi, who was also a candidate at the election, raised a preliminary objection that respondent No. 2 Kanhaiyalal, who was a duly nominated candidate for the election but had withdrawn from the contest, was a necessary party. The Election Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 28-11-1960, holding that ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Keshoprasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ688
ORDERN.M. Golvalker, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused challenging his conviction Under Sections 467 and 409, Indian Penai Code, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 103 of I960.2. The accused, who was employed as Secretary, in the 'Municipal Committee, Dhamtari, from 1-5-1957 to 30-10-1957 and as a Head Clerk before that, was found to have camailted forgery and criminal breach of trust with respsct to an amwnt of Rs. 150.38 We which was payable to 1MB Mr. let on account of the pries of the boots supplied to him. In one of the grounds of appeal before me it of crotended that his trial stood Hiatea Inasmuch as the mutant was not permitted to summon and examine Met Witnesses by the learned Additional sessions Judge. Since this ground went to fact of the whole trial, I decided to hear the parties on this ground as preliminary before proceeding to hear them on merits. Accordingly I heard them and proceed to decide this question as under.3. The accused w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »