Madhya Pradesh Court November 1963 Judgments
Brijendra Singh Prithvi Singh Vs. Gyani Chand Kastoor Chand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1965MP100
Newaskar, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover Rs. 5000/- with interest and notice charges Rs. 256-15-6 on the allegations that this amount had been advanced as a loan to the defendant on 25-4-1957 and 26-4-1957 by three different cheques receipt of which had been admitted by him. The advance of loan was, according to the plaintiff made on defendant's representation that he would utilize the amount for securing contract for exploiting the areas in certain blocks for Tendu leaves, secure removal of the leaves to Guna and adjust the advance against the cost price of the leaves making them over to the plaintiff. This latter representation or promise, it is said, could not he fulfilled. The plaintiff thus, plainly put, sues for the recovery of a loan advanced to the defendant. 2. The defendant contended that he had not borrowed the aforesaid amount as a loan. It was the amount made over by the plaintiff to the defendant as his share of capital contribution in a partnership venture for exploi...
Tag this Judgment!Janata Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. State Transport A ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1965MP113
Dixit, C.J.1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of cartiorari for quashing an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rajput rejecting its application for the grant of: a permit on Raipnr-Rajnandgaon route, and of the State Transport Appellate Authority upholding in appeal the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. While rejecting the petitioner's application, the Regional Transport Authority allowed the application of the respondent No. 3, Durg Transport Co., for the renewal of its permit in respect of the aforesaid route. 2. The two grounds on which the renewal in favour of the respondent No. 3 was assailed before the Appellate Authority, and which have been repeated before us, are that on 17th to 19th July, 1962 when the Regional Transport Authority took the decision to renew the permit in favour of the respondent No. 3, Shri J.P. Mishra, who was functioning as the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was not v...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Prasad Tulsiram and anr. Vs. Kanti Prasad Battilal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964MP305; 1964MPLJ97
Newaskar, J. 1. This appeal principally raises the question as to the right of the mortgagee to bring the mortgaged propertyto sale, the contention being that the mortgage in suit is a purely usufructuary mortgage in spite of the circumstance that the mortgagor had covenanted to pay the mortgage money by a certain date. Material facts are asfollows : Plaintiffs' claim for the recovery of the mortgage-money amounting to Rs. 23,615-9-0, was based on a mortgage-deed dated 6-12-1946 for Rs. 21,000/-. Under the terms of this mortgage-deed (Ex. P-16) the mortgagors had agreed to pay interest every month at Annas 8 per cent per month on the mortgage amount of Rs. 21,000/-, the method of paying the same being by execution of a. rent-note: in mortgagee's favour for the amount equal to interest. The mortgagors further agreed to pay the principal amount by instalments spread over 10 years, first instalment payable at the end of first year being Rs. 3000/- and later on by instalments of Rs. 2000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Bhai Habib Bhai Vs. Bhagwandas Jagannath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1967MP143
Shiv Dayal, J.1. A decree for ejectment has been passed against the appellant on the ground that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent in spite of notice within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, (hereinafter called the Act). It is urged for the appellant that the arrears of rent which fell due before the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property could not be called arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Act.2. Material facts are that on 24 August 1959 the suit house was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent. On 28th August 1959, he gave a notice to the appellant and on 10 October 1959, he instituted the suit. As the notice was given within four days of his purchasing the property, it could not be said that any rent had fallen due to him. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had to pay Rs. 20/- as arrears of rent to Ramdayal and Rs. 20/- to Deshraj, his predeccssors-in-title and the said Ramdayal and D...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomji Cowasji Jall Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1965MP170
Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 390, 391, 392, 393 and 394 all of 1962. 2. By these six petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Rustomji Jail of Mhow, challenges the validity of notices under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), served on him in respect of escaped income for the years ending on 31st March 1941, 31st March 1942, 31st March 1943, 31st March 1944, 31st March 1945, and 31st March 1946. He prays for the issue of writs for quashing these notices and for a writ of mandamus restraining the opponent in each case from taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance of the notices. 3. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner is a resident of Mhow, which was formerly a yart of the quondam Holkar State. In or about 1934 he began interesting himself in business activities in the then British India and acquired a textile mill, known as the new Premier Mill...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomji Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Indore.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR461(MP); 1964MPLJ457
DIXIT C.J. - This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 390,391,392,393, and 394, all of 1962.By these six petitions under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Rustomji, Jall of Mhow, challenges the validity of notices under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) served on him in respect of escaped income for the years ending on 31st March, 1941, 31st March, 1942, 31st March 1943, 31st March, 1944, 31st March, 1945, and 31st March, 1946. He prays for the issue of writs for quashing these notices and for a writ of mandamus restraining the opponent in each case from taking steps or proceedings in pursuance of the notices.The relevant facts are these. The petitioner is a resident of Mhow, which was formerly a part of the quondam Holkar State. In or about 1934, he began interesting himself in business activities in the then British India and acquired a textile, mill, known as the New Premier Mills, Bomba...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Vs. Bipinlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964MP92; 1964MPLJ160
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Election Tribunal, Seoni, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Section 81 of the Act calling in question the election of the respondent No. 1, Bipinlal, to the Madhya Pra-desh Legislative Assembly from Waraseoni Constituency.2. Seven persons, including the appellant, filed their nominations for election from the said constituency. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 withdrew their candidature. The respondent No. 1, Bipinlal, secured the largest number of votes and was declared as elected candidate. The appellant-Shantilal, who was defeated at the election, then filed an election petition giving rise to this appeal, praying that the election of the respondent-Bipinlal be declared void and that he, who had secured the largest number of votes after the said respondent, be declared duly elected. The election of the respondent was...
Tag this Judgment!Water Works Karmachari Sangh Vs. Public Health and Engineering Departm ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP49; [1965(11)FLR181]; (1966)ILLJ366MP
Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution submitted by the workers of the Water-works Ujjain through the President of the Water-works Karmachari Sangh.2. The petition is directed against the Public Health and Engineering Department Government of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal, and by this petition the petitioners seek to quash the order passed by the Industrial Court on a reference made by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made may briefly be stated as under:3. The petitioners raised a dispute regarding pension scheme under which they were entitled to pension by reason of the fact that the Water-works at Ujjain was taken over by the State of Madhya Bharat on 1-4-1955 and it had been decided to allow pension to the employees of the Water-works as if they had commenced their services in the State Government Department from 2-4-1953. Many of the employees of the Wat...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Gangaram Rathor and anr. Vs. Ramaji Bondarji and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP177
Sen, J.1. A very short point is involved in this appeal and there is no doubt that the appeal must fail.2. The appellant Maganlal and Mishirlal brought a suit against the respondents Ramaji and others for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. While the proceedings were going on before the lower Court, an application was made on 7th November 1960 jointly by both the parties for referring the matter in dispute to arbitrators. The parties themselves mentioned the names of the following persons as arbitrators, 1 Chainsingh, 2 Laxrainarayan 3 Pannalal and 4 Bhurmal They also mentioned the name of the umpire.3. The Court allowed the application and the disputes were referred to the arbitrators on 7th November 1960. The arbitrators started proceedings but in the end one of the arbitrators Bhurmal gave a notice expressing his disapproval of the other arbitrators to act on the ground that there were money lending transactions between the other arbitrators and the plaintiff. Bhur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›