Madhya Pradesh Court January 1963 Judgments
Laxmansingh Chandrasingh Vs. Kesharbai Laxmansingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP166; 1965MPLJ702
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is by the plaintiff-husband against the decree, dated 23rd August 1961 passed by Shri P. V. Muzumdar, First Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 22 of 1960 dismissing the petitioner's claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.2. The appellant had presented his petition in the Court of the District Judge who, however, transferred the case for trial to the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Indore, in pursuance of a distribution memo dated 1st January 1960. The appellant sought restitution of conjugal rights on the allegation that the respondent had been married to him on 18th June 1941 and that she had left her husband's house some time in the year 1959 without any reasonable cause. It was also alleged that there were five issues born to the parties after the marriage.3. The respondent denied that she was the married wife of the appellant. She also alleged that she f...
Tag this Judgment!Bachawan Bai Vs. Ramkalibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP251; (1967)IILLJ656MP
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order refusing to grant probate, of what was alleged to be that of a deceased worker in the Kalyanmal Mills Indore in respect of his provident fund. The petition for the grant of probate was submitted by the appellant Bachawanbai, the mother of the deceased. 2. The petition was opposed by the widow of the deceased namely Ramkalibai who contended that the document relied upon is in fact not a will, that the deceased was not in a sound disposing state of mind on the dale the endorsment, on the certificate of Membership of the Kutumb Sahayak Fund Scheme, was made and that the alleged document was neither validly executed nor attested. 3. The learned Judge of the Probate Court held that the endorsement at the foot of the nomination column at the back of the certificate of membership of the fund did not amount to a will as there were no words to indicate that the endorser wanted to make a posthumous disposition of the fund. It is merely a di...
Tag this Judgment!Nathani Brothers Vs. Sales Tax Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC307(MP)
1. This is a reference under Section 23(3) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), and the questions which the Tribunal was directed by us on 10th August, 1962, in M.C.C. No. 99 of 1961 to refer to us for decision are :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 6th October, 1955, could be revised under Section 22-B of the Act ?(2) Whether, on the basis of the notice dated 12th September, 1957, proceedings under Section 22-B of the Act could be validly initiated ?2 In proceedings for assessment of sales tax on Messrs Nathani Brothers of Raipur on their sale transactions of manganese ore during the period 10th November, 1950, to 4th November, 1953, it was found by the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, that the dealer's turnover was Rs. 2,16,343-2-0 but that the dealer was not liable to pay any sales tax as the manganese ore was exported outside the State after 1st April, 1951. The assessee naturally di...
Tag this Judgment!Naraindas Lalchand Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1963MP247; [1963]49ITR768(MP); 1963MPLJ353
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 47, 48 and 49, all of 1962.2. These four petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are by persons who are partners in two registered firms engaged in the business of bidi manufacturing under the name and style of M/s. Udhoji Shri Kishandass of Satna and M/s. Ramadhin Bhagwatdin of Sehora. The prayer of each of the petitioners is for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of rectification of assessment under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, passed against him by the Income-tax Officer, Satna, on 31st December 1960.3. The material facts are these. The assessment of the firm M/s. Udhoji Shri Kishandass of Satna for the year 1955-56 was completed on 21st February 1956 by the Income-tax Officer, Satna, and the proportionate share of profits of each of the petitioners, Naraindas, Gopaldas and Madhoji was computed at Rs. 7684/- and of the petitioner Kishandas a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shri Amarjeet Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC501(MP)
1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) has referred to this Court under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, read with Section 23 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the following questions of law :(i) Whether the revisional jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, extends to orders passed in appeal under Section 22 of that Act ?(ii) Whether an authority prescribed under Section 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, read with Rule 53 of the rules thereunder, is a person appointed under Section 3 of that Act to assist the Commissioner of Sales Tax ?2. The relevant facts, as disclosed in the statement of the case, are these. On 22nd May, 1954, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, assessed to tax under Section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. N.K. Shrivastawa and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ103
P.R. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by the State Government against an order of acquittal under the Factories Act (Act LXIII of 1948). The respondents K. N. Shnvastava and L. N. Bnagwati were at the relevant time respectively the uccupier and Manager of the Central India Machinery Manufacturing company Limited, Gwalior. On the 6th of May 1959, the said Company was inspected by Shri C.P. Tyagi, Factory Inspector, He noticed that the hoist way enclosure in the Factory was not provided with gates having interlocking arrangement or other efficient device to secure that the gate could not be opened except when the cage was at the landing, and that the cage could not be moved unless the gate had been closed. The present respondents were, theretore, prosecuted for breach of Section 28(1)(e) of the Factories Act. The trial Court found the respondents guilty of the charge and sentenced them to pay a tine of Rs. 50-each. On appeal, the order of conviction and sentence was set aside by the Additi...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Sundersen and Co. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1963MP213
Pandey, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the holder of a mining concession for a writ of certiorari and such other writ or order as this Court may consider appropriate. It is mainly directed against an order dated 4 January 1962 whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katni (respondent 2), directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,570/- as compensation for the surface of 11.35 acres of land before commencing the mining operations.2. By a provisional agreement dated 26 December 1960, the petitioner was allowed to extract and remove fire-clay from 58.05 acres of land of village Jharela, tahsil Murwara, as therein specified.One of the terms of that agreement is that the petitioner shall observe and conform to the requirements of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. On 17 April 1961, the petitioner applied for permission to commence the mining operations over 11.35 acres of the land. The respondent 2, by his order dated 29 May 1961, overruled the petitioner's contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Gupta Vs. the Hitkarini Sabha and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1963MP270; 1963MPLJ293
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 409 of 1962.2. These two petitions are by persons who claim to be Life Members of the Hitkarini Sabha, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the Sabha), which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has as its aims and objects, inter alia, the promotion of 'moral, social, and intellectual interests and well-being of the people' and the extension and promotion of 'literary, technical and other useful knowledge amongst the people ordinarily by maintaining a High School, an Arts College, a Law College.' The petitioner Gulabchand in Misc. Petition No. 360 of 1962 challenges the validity of the Ordinary General Meeting of the Sabha held on 29th September 1962 at which 32 persons were enrolled as members of the Sabha and Manmohandas, respondent No. 2 to the petition, was elected as the Chairman of the Sabha. He prays for the issue of a writ of certie...
Tag this Judgment!Ulfatrai Maniram Vaishya Vs. Proprietors of Firm Ramcharanlal Shrikris ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1963MP228; 1963MPLJ884
A. K. Khan, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order of a Single Judge passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1959, upholding the decision of the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in insolvency proceedings.2. The facts out of which this appeal arises in short are that one Shantilai filed a petition dated 4-2-52 in the Insolvency Court, Gwalior, alleging that he had dealings with the Firm known as 'Ramcharan Lal Shrikishen' of which Jagannath and Madanial are the owners, that a sum of Rs. 1864/7/9 is due from the firm, that the firm is heavily indebted to many other persons (the names and the amount due from the firm is then given) and that the firm is unable to liquidate its debts. It was also alleged that the owners of the Firm (Jagannath and Madanlal) had transferred to Agra its goods to some persons as trustees and that the only property left in Lashkar, Gwalior, is some cloth and a shop. The petitioner prayed that the owners of the firm be adju...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Chhotelal and ors. Vs. Ramprakash Ghasiram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1963MP329; 1963MPLJ553
P.K. Tare, J.1. This appeal involves the only question whether in a suit the attachment before judgment effected, which terminates on the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, is automatically revived by the fact that the appellate Court, reversing the dismissal of the suit, passes a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.2. The appellants in their money suit against the respondent secured an attachment before judgment from the trial Court, Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. Upon an appeal, the first appellate Court decreed the plaintiffs' claim by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Thereafter, the appellants took steps to get a proclamation of sale issued without securing a fresh order of attachment from the executing Court. The respondent-judgment-debtor raised an objection that the property could not be sold without & fresh order of attachment. The executing Court, as also the first appellate Court, held that anappeal being a continuation of the suit, the appellate decree r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »