Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Hiranand Tejumal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC74(MP)
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 2nd December, 1960, by which the Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur (respondent 2), rejected the petitioner's application for the grant of a licence under Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, which is hereinafter called the Act.2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer, carries on in the city of Jabalpur the business of preparing and selling sweetmeats and khara under the name and style of 'Hira Sweet Mart'. In the assessment year 1959-60, his turnover in respect of sales of sweetmeats amounted to Rs. 39,983-11-0, though, inclusive of sales of khara which is not taxable under the Act, the total turnover exceeded Rs. 50,000. On 18th November, 1960, the petitioner made, under Section 13 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the rules framed thereunder, an application in the prescribed form for the grant of a licence stating that his turnover in respect of sales of ...
Radhakishan Chintaman Vs. Chapa Bhima and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP139; 1962MPLJ411
ORDERH.R. Krishna, J.1. These two applications in revision have been filed by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Small Cause Court dismissing his suits based on two pro-notes. Though the plaintiff did not mention in the plaint the circumstances in which the pro-notes had been executed, they were brought out in evidence. The plaintiff, who is a jailor, reported to the police that two young boys -- sons respectively of the defendants in the Small Cause Suits -- had jointly stolen a watch belonging to him, and worth about Rs. 150/-. A case was started as usual and when it was pending investigation the fathers of the two boys executed pro-notes for amounts totalling the estimated price of the watch. The cases were dropped.2. In the suits, the defence was that there was no consideration, the pronotes were executed under pressure or coercion, and at all events they were executed as part of the agreement to state prosecution and therefore void on grounds of public policy. The plaintiff co...
Anandsingh S/O Vibhutsingh Vs. Ramchandra S/O Sarman Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP28
A.H. Khan, J. 1. The plaintiff brought a suit, alleging that the defendant had built two pakka walls 'EF' and 'FG' on the North and South of his house, as a result of which water in between the plaintiff's house and the defendant's house flows through a lane which belongs to the defendant, but it damages the walls of the plaintiff marked as 'AB' and 'AC'. The plaintiff prayed that the walls of the defendant (which defendant had built on his land) be ordered to be demolished and that he should be restrained from constructing any more wall there, and, that he be also given Rs. 100/- as compensation for damage to his wall.2. The defendant resisted the suit. The trial Court directed the defendant to put slabs in the lane within two months of the date of the decree, and that he should further repair the wall of the plaintiff upto one yard from the bottom, plastering it with lime or else pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 100/- for the purpose. On appeal by the defendant, the decree was a...
Dr. S.C. Barat and anr. Vs. Hari Vinayak Pataskar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP73
Dixit, C.J.1. The petitioners in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution are members of the Jabalpur University Court. The applicant Dr. S.C. Barat is also a member of the Executive Council of the University and the other petitioner is a member of the Academic Council. They have filed this application for quashing by a suitable writ an order made by the respondent No. 1 the Chancellor of the University, appointing the respondent No. 4, Shri Avadh Bihari Mishra, as the Vice-Chancellor and for the issue of suitable directions to the Chancellor for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University in accordance with Section 11 of the Jabalpur University Act, 1956.2. The material facts are that the term of the respondent No. 3, Pt. Kunjilal Dubey, as the Vice-Chancellor was due to expire on 11th June 1961, and the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor had to be made. According to Section 11 the Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of not less tha...
Jiwajirao Sugar Company Ltd. Vs. J.M. Banerji
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP310; 1962MPLJ343
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the defendant employer from the Judgment of the appellate court setting aside the judgment of dismissal by the trial court, and awarding a decree for part of the claim, in favour of the plaintiff-employer. The only point of law at that stage was that the trial court had held that the claim had been time-barred while the appellate court held that the suit being governed by Article 115 and not 102 of the Limitation Act, was not timebarred. For reasons that will presently appear. It is unnecessary to go in this issue now. A new point of law has been raised in revision; under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the claim of the employee in the present case was cognizable solely by the authority for the payment of wages, and therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction. It is urged on behalf of the appellant-employer that it is a case of absolute ban and basic want of jurisdiction which cannot in any event be cured b...
Narsingh Kalu Kalota Vs. Rao Nihalkaran Raoraja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP318; 1962MPLJ39
V.R. Newakar, J. 1. The only question raised in this appeal is regarding the validity of the decree obtained against the appellant by the respondent. The matter arises in execution. The facts are as follows: Respondent Nihalkaran obtained a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent in a suit filed in 1951 by him against the appellant. The decree was passed by the trial court in favour of the respondent on 23-9-1953. There was an appeal against that decision and the same was confirmed by the Appellate court on 29-4-1957. The respondent, after the decree was thus confirmed in appeal applied for its execution in the court of civil Judge, Second Class, Hatod. A notice under Order 21, Rule 22, C. P. Code was issued to the judgment-debtor. Thereupon an objection was raised on behalf of judgment-debtor that the said decree in favour of the appellant was null and void as, subsequent to the filing of this suit, the Madhya Bharat Legislature had passed a law known as Madhya Bharat Abolition of Ja...
Manglabai W/O Deorao Vs. Deorao Gulabrao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP193; 1963MPLJ878
1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act from a decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, for judicial separation on petition by the husband.2. Manglabai was married to Deorao in 1951. In 1952 they were blessed with a son. They lived together upto July 24, 1953 when Mangalabai went away to her mother's house. After that she did not go to her husband at any time. The boy is living with his mother,3. On February 7, Deovao made a petition under Sections 10 and, 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree for judicial separation as also for a decree for divorce on the grounds that Mangalabai had deserted him without any cause, that in spite for his repeated requests she did not return to his house and that she was living in adultery. This petition was resisted by Mangalabai on the grounds that she was beaten by Deorao and his father on July 24, 1953, because of which she apprehended danger to her life; that even before this her husband and father...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›