Madhya Pradesh Court December 1963 Judgments
Keshrimal Pyarchand and ors. Vs. Basantilal Pyarchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP56
Newaskar, J.1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act is directed against an order dated 6-11-1961 refusing to set aside an award. Material facts are as follows.2. Two brothers Basantilal and Keshrimal who are residents of Shajapur formed a joint Hindu family possessing Joint Hindu family property. Kesharimal has two sons Vimalchand and Paraschand whereas Basantilal has two sons Ashok and Sudarshan. The family continued to be joint when in the year 1958 disputes cropped up between the two branches of the family represented by the two brothers Keshrimal and Basantilal. On 14-7-1958 the dispute as to their joint family property and its division was referred to arbitration of four arbitrators Poonamchand, Mishrilal, Kanhaiyalal and Gangabisan. Reference to arbitration was drawn up in writing, signed by Keshrimal and his sons as well as by Basantilal.3. On 16-7-1958 all the arbitrators except Poonam Chand were present. They wrote to the latter that either he should keep himsel...
Tag this Judgment!Khachu Jagannath and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964MP239; 1964CriLJ422; 1964MPLJ186
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This revision was referred to the Chief Justice by Sharma, J., sitting alone, with the recommendation that it be placed before a Bench of two Judges in view of important questions of law involved. The petitioners were tried under Sections 447, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code by the Nyaya Panchayat, Jigni, established under the M.B. Panchayat Act, No. 58 of 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). The Nyaya Panchayat found the petitioners guilty and punished them with a fine of Rs. 25/- each. Their revision was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. The petitioners grievance is that the provisions of the Panchayat Act infringe Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as in a trial before a Nyaya Panchayat, there is no provision for framing of a charge or for further cross-examination of prosecution witnesses even in a warrant case.2. A Nyaya Panchayat is established under Section 51 of the Act. Its criminal jurisdiction, is provided in Section 75. Offences speci...
Tag this Judgment!Richhpal Laxminarayan Vs. Kishanlal Hemraj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP207
P.K. Tare, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant-tenant against the decree, dated, 4-3-1963, passed by Shri L. P. Gupta, Fourth Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 15 of 1962, reversing the decree, dated, 30-9-1961 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class II, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 14 of 1960.2. The appellant was originally the tenant of one, Badri Bhola, who had filed civil suit No. 169 of 1956 for eviction, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation in the Court of the City Civil Judge Class, II Indore on the ground of genuine need of residence, as also on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent despite a notice of demand. That suit was dismissed except for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 82. It was held that the landlord had no genuine need for residential purposes. Similarly, the ground under Section 4 (a) of the M. B. Accommodation Control Act, 1955 was also negatived. At this stage, it may be pertinent to note that in that case a ren...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC554(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a decision, dated 15th March, 1963, of the Commissioner of Sales Tax by which the Commissioner upheld in revision an order made by the Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon, on 10th August, 1960, assessing the petitioner- company to sales tax in the sum of Rs. 23,524-25 nP. for the period from 1st February, 1957, to 31st March, 1959, and imposing on it a penalty of Rs. 30,000 under Section 18(6) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The material facts are that during the period from 1st February, 1957, to 31st March, 1959, the petitioner 'supplied' sand from Sheonath riverbed to the Hindustan Steel (Private) Ltd., Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai (hereinafter called the Project) under an agreement concluded between the petitioner and the Project on 13th April, 1956. In January, 1960, the Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandga...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Latif Abdulla Vs. Board of Revenue and 2 ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1963
Reported in: 1964MPLJ246; [1964]15STC182(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. The circumstances in which this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed are that on 7th June, 1956, the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, made an order holding that no tax was payable by the petitioner inasmuch as out of the entire gross turnover of Rs. 8,12,114-13-3 as determined by him Rs. 10,234-5-9 represented sales to the registered dealers, goods of the value of Rs. 4,07,651-6-3 were transferred to the head office in Calcutta and the branch office at Nipani, and Rs. 3,94,229-1-3 represented the price of sales made in the course of inter-State trade. The Commissioner of Sales Tax thought that this order of the Sales Tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He therefore issued a notice to the petitioner in Form No. XXV on 11th April, 1958, for revising under Section 22-B of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the order dated 7th June, 1956. The petitioner's objec...
Tag this Judgment!Gole Krishna Vs. Kishandas Agarwal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964MP158
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent from a decision of Sharma, J., where-by the learned Judge setting aside the decision of the first appellate Court dismissing a suit filed by the respondent Shri Kishandas for the reason that it was barred by time under Article II of the Limitation Act, remitted the matter to the said Court with a direction that it should re-hear the appeal preferred before it by the plaintiff on points besides the one decided by the learned Judge and dispose of it according to law.2. The material lacts are that in execution proceedings of a decree held by one Ramchandra against Nakta, the father of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, a house along with some land situated in Gwalior, was sold on 21st April, 1954 and purchased by the appellant Gole. This property had been mortgaged by Nakta with the plaintiff-respondent Shri Kishandas. On 24th April, 1954, Shri Kishandas presented an application before the executing Court objecting to the sal...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Dhannalal Vs. Shivprasad Bholaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1966MP171
P.K. Tare, J.1. This appeal shall also govern the disposal of Second Appeal No. 104 of 1963 which had been filed by the present respondent as a cross objection, but which was directed to be registered as a separate appeal. The present appeal is by the tenant, while the connected cross appeal is by the landlord,2. The tenant's appeal is against the decree, dated, 17-10-1962 passed by Shri P. C. Gupta, Third Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1960 reversing the decree, dated, 29-2-1960, passed by Shri G. K. Sharrna, Additional Civil Judge Class I, Mhow in Civil Suit No. 12 of 1957, wherein the tenant challenges the decree for eviction mainly on the ground that the decree is not on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. In the connected cross appeal filed by the respondent-landlord his relief is for mesne profits or damages for use and occupation from the date of the suit to the date of delivery of possession,3. At ...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Bharatsingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964MP175; 1964CriLJ160
Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 1963.2. The appellant Bharatsingh filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order passed by the State Government on 24th April 1963 under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibiting him from remaining in any place in Raipur district, directing him to reside within the municipal limits of Jhabua town, district Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, and to proceed there immediately, and asking him to notify his movements and report himself personally every day at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. to the Police Station Officer, Jhabua.In that petition, Bharatsingh made a prayer for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order. The petition was heard and disposed of during the last summer vacation by Shiv Dayal 1. He held that Section 3(1) (a) of the Act was validbut Clauses (b) and (c) of that section w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›