Madhya Pradesh Court February 1964 Judgments
Badri Prasad Sadashivrao Vs. District Judge, Shri G.R. Kale
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1964MP264
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 392 and from 404 to 416, all of 1963,2. The petitioners in all these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were until lately appearing for parties in cases in the subordinate courts at Indore after obtaining general powers of attorney from parties, and in some cases special powers of attorney. In July 1963 a complaint was received by the District Judge of Indore from the Bar Association, Indore, stating that the petitioner Badri Prasad, in M. P. No. 329 of 1963, and other persons, under the cover of general powers of attorney and also in some cases special powers of attorney, were appearing for parties in cases and practising as legal practitioners for them, and that they also attired themselves as lawyers. Thereupon the learned District Judge held an inquiry into the matter. He directed all the petitioners to furnish him a list of cases in which they were appearing in the various subordinate co...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamacharan Raghubar Prasad Vs. Sheojee Bhai Jairam Chattri and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1964MP288; 1964MPLJ502
Dixit, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on 25th June 1960 by the respondent No. 1, Sheoji Bhai, against the appellant Shyamacharan and the respondent No. 2 Yadav, claiming a decree for their eviction from a cinema-house known as Jairam Theatres, situated in Raipur, and a decree for arrears of rent and damages. The Additional District Judge of Raipur, who is trying the suit, has, in the circumstances stated below, given to the plaintiff a decree for the ejectment of the defendants. It is against this decree that this appeal has been filed.2. The plaintiff's case was that by a registered lease-deed the defendants had taken from him the cinema house on lease for a period of ten years from 20th May 1950 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/-; that on the expiry of the lease by efflux of time on the midnight of 19th May 1960 he served telegraphically a notice on the defendant Shyanzacharan for vacating the leased property and delivering vacant possession thereof to him; and that inste...
Tag this Judgment!Murti Shri Thakur Chaturbhujji Maharaj Birajman Mandir and anr. Vs. Pu ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965MP3; 1964MPLJ843
Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit for a declaration that the properties described in paras 3 and 7 of the plaint belong to the plaintiff No. 1, namely the idol of Shri Chaturbhuj; that defendant had no personal right to or interest in the suit property, that the defendant-respondent No. 1 was a mere pujari of the plaintiff idol and in the capacity of a pujari was bound to work under the control of the plaintiff No. 2 Shri Rao Chaturbhuj, and the remaining defendants.2. The defendant No. 1 objected inter alia that the suit was unmaintainable on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This contention was upheld by the trial Court.3. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiffs alleged in paragraph 9 of the plaint that the defendant No. 1 was asserting his own right to the property described in paras 3 and 7 of the plaint. In para 15 the first two reliefs claimed by the plai...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pramode Mategaonkar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ562
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal against the respondent's acquittal of the offence under Section 409, Penal Code.2. The Magistrate 1st Class, Jabalpur, had found that the respondent, Promod Mategaonkar, an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the M. P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur, embezzled a cheque for Rs. 3423.50 nP. of the Electricity Board in purchasing for himself an auto-cycle and thereafter a motor cycle from Messrs. Janta Motor Cycle Co., Jabalpur. He was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or, in default of payment of fine, to a further term of rigorous imprisonment for four months. As regards the disposal of the motor cycle seized from the respondent, he directed that as it was purchased with the money belonging to the M. P. Electricity Board, it shall be delivered to the Board. The Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, acquitted him holding, in main, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Maniklal Mittal Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1966MP243
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This is a revision petition filed by plaintiff Maniklal Mitlal against the Union of India for recovery of Rs. 6140.17 nP.2. The only question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the Court of Civil Judge First Class, Indore, in which the present suit was filed has jurisdiction to try the same. Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The present revision petition is directed against that order3. The claim for recovery of the aforesaid amount arose under the following circumstances:--The defendant, represented by the Western Railway Administration, entered into a contract with the firm now represented by the plaintiff for conveyance of parcels and goods of all kinds initially from Dhamnod to Mhow and back and later on from Dhamnod to Indore and back since the said Railway Administration has established an out-agency for the conveyance ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Vs. Dilbande HussaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1967MP14
1. This is a reference by the first Civil Judge, Second Class, Indore, under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code for deciding the question whether if a Bhumi-swami is dispossessed of any land held by him as Bhumiswami otherwise than in due course of law, he can file a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for recovering possession of the land.2. The reference arises out of a suit filed by one Nathu under Section 9 of the Act against Dilbande Hussain and three other persons for possession of certain land on the allegations that he was in possession of the land in suit as Bhumiswami and that the defendant had dispossessed him without any right otherwise than in due course of law. The defendants, while admitting that the plaintiff is recorded as a Bhumiswami of the disputed land, raised the objection that under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), read with Section 267 (x...
Tag this Judgment!Brindrabanprasad Ambikaprasad Ahwasi Vs. Dashrath Ramratan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1966MP211
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Hereinafter called 'the Act') filed by the plaintiff-applicant (decree-holder) .2. The circumstances giving rise to this application for revision are as follows :The plaintiff-decree-holder, on 25-4-1963, obtained an ex parte decree against the defendant-judgment-debtor in the Court of the Small Causes at Jabalpur. The defendant-judgment-debtor, on 26-4-1963, filed two applications--one, for selling aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other, presumably under Section 17 of the Act, praying that he be permitted to give such security for the performance of the decree as the Court may please in lieu of depositing the decretal amount in Court. No orders were passed on the application for giving security in lieu of depositing the decretal amount in Court till 10-9-1963 on which date the Court directed the defendant-judgm...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Syed Akbar Ali Syed Ahmad Ali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964MP213; 1964MPLJ854
Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State Government against the judgment and decree dated the 28th of October, 1960 passed in favour of the respondent by, the Addl. District Judge Guna, in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1960 of his Court. 2. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the Divisional Forest Officer of Rajasthan State for preparing 'kattha' from the forest trees in Sironj subdivision and deposited a sum of Rs. 5130/- by way of cash security in the Rajasthan State Treasury. The Sironj sub-division was, on the passing of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 transferred to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff, therefore, deposited the monies payable under the contract in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer Guna and carried on the work of preparing 'kattha' as originally agreed between himself and the State of Rajasthan. On the completion of the contract he demanded refund of the amount of Rs. 5130/- deposited as cash security. The State of Madhya Pradesh d...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Finances Private Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964MP242; [1964]15STC254(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 278, 279 and 281, all of 1963.2. These are four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari for quashing the notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer Jabalpur, under Section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to each of the petitioner. The petitioners also pray that appropriate directions be issued to the opponents to restrain them from making any assessment to sales tax against them in respect of transactions of 'hire-purchase' entered into by them.3. The petitioner's case, broadly stated, is that they carry on the business of financing purchase of motor vehicles on 'hire-purchase' system from their offices located at Allahabad, in Uttar Pradesh; that they have no place of business in the State of Madhya Pradesh and never carried on in the past, nor do they carry on now, within the State of Madhya Pradesh any bus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›