Madhya Pradesh Court July 1964 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mohammad HussaIn Rahim Bux
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965MP11; [1964]15STC841(MP)
Dixit, C.J. 1. This is a reference tinder Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The questions, which have been posed for our decision, are :'1. Whether Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution was applicable to the State of Vindhya Pradesh during the assessment period ?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sales of Rs. 31,059-12-0 were liable to tax under the V. P. Sales Tax Ordinance No. II of 1949 ?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the despatches of goods worth Rs. 4,01,255-4-0 to customers outside the State were liable to tax under the V. P. Sales Tax Ordinance No. II of 1949?'2. The material facts are that in respect of the period of assessment from 1st April 1950 to 30th June 1950 the assessee-firm, which carries on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis with its head-office atMaihar, claimed that it was not liable to tax in respect of the sales of bidis of the...
Chamelibai Vallabhadas and ors. Vs. Ramchandrajee and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965MP167; 1965MPLJ921
Newaskar, J. 1. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by plaintiff Sundarlal, s/o Manoharlal Brahmin claiming himself to be the Pujari and Shebait of a temple situated in Lohia Bazar Lashkar. The suit was brought by him as the next friend of the various idols of Ramchandraji, Seetaji, Laxmanji, etc., eight in all. According to Sundarlal the temple where all the above idols are installed is a portion of a bigger area and the entire properties situated in the area, as shown in the map filed along with the plaint, belong to the said idols and constitute a public endowment, the same having been dedicated to the said idols for the up-keep of the temple and for carrying on their worship. According to Sundarlal he used to recover rent of the properties and deposit the same with the defendant who, on the insistence of the members of the Hindu Community of the locality, had utilized part of the funds lying in deposit with him in building a Dharamshala within that area. How...
Vinod Kumar Radhika Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1966MP134; (1969)ILLJ623MP; 1965MPLJ825
Dixit, C.J.1. The petitioner Vinod Kumar Verma in this case was holding in the former State of Vindhya Pradesh the post of District Welfare Organiser in Backward Classes Welfare Department at the time when that State became a part of the new State of Madhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After the coming into force of the Act, he was allowed to continue in the post he held in Vindhya Pradesh until 24th August 1961 when an order was passed by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Madhya Pradesh, provisionally absorbing him against the post of Circle Organiser with effect from 1st November 1956 till further orders. The petitioner then filed a representation to the Government against the absorption order, which was rejected. In the provisional integration list of the Tribal Welfare Department, which was published subsequently, the petitioner's post of District Welfare Organiser in V. P. was equated with the post of Circle Organiser in the...
Sumerchand Hukumchand and ors. Vs. Hukumchand Mathurdas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965MP177; 1965MPLJ829
1. This is a plaintiffs' First Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge Guna, whereby their suit for specific performance or in the alternative for return of earnest money was dismissed.2. The admitted facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, in his capacity as a karta of the Joint Hindu family consisting of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, by an agreement dated 20-11-1951agreed to sell to the plaintiffs certain blocks from a garden commonly known as 'Tadaiyyawalli Bagia' situate at Ashoknagar for a total sum of Rs. 13001 /-and obtained an advance of Rs. 3200/- from them, It was stipulated in the agreement that the defendant will on payment of the balance of Rs. 9801/-within 8 days by the plaintiffs execute a separate registered sale dead in favour of each of the plaintiffs. It was also agreed that in case of default the plaintiffs will be entitled to take legal proosedings for execution and registration of the sale deed. The defendants did not exe...
Sooratsingh Mathuraprasad Vs. Deepchand Ramlal JaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1966MP247
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. The question raised in this revision petition is about the court-fees payable by the plaintiff-applicant in an appeal filed by him in the Court of the Additional District Judge Sagar attainst a final decree passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Sagar. in a suit filed by the petitioner for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts making the applicant liable for payment of Rs 4.472.50 nP. to the defendant-opponent Deepchand.2. The petitioner valued his suit at Rs. 4,500 for the purpose of court-lees, and asked for rendering of accounts and a decree for that amount with the statement that if more than Rs. 4,500 were found due from the defendants, he would pay an additional court-fee. The defendant No. 1 asked for a decree in his own favour. After taking of accounts no sum was found due to the plaintiff On the other hand, it was found that a sum of Rs. 4,472.50 nP. was due from him to the defendant No 1. In the appeal which he filed in the Court of the Add...
State Vs. Gopinath Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1964
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ335MP
P.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal against a decision of Shiv Dayal, J., arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, Goplnath Shukla, against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Inspector-General of Police for a declaration that the order passed by the Inspector-General of Police on 25 January 1955 removing him from service was illegal, null and void, and for the consequential relief of reinstatement in service. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Jabalpur, and the appellants were directed to take back the plaintiff-respondent in service from the date of his removal therefrom. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld by the Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in an appeal preferred by the State against the decision of the trial Court. The State then preferred a second appeal in this Court which was dismissed by Shiv Dayal, J.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case was that he was a confirmed sub-inspector of police In the police force of...
Motilal Laxman and ors. Vs. Purshottam Damodar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1966MP330
ORDERP.K. Tare, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the defendants against the order, dated, 20-8-1963, passed by Shri Devendrasingh, Civil Judge Class I, Khargone in Civil Suit No. 20-A of 1962, demanding court-fees on Rs. 2201/- on the ground that the defendants were claiming the said amount by way of a counter claim. 2. The first respondent, Purshottam filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage, dated, 38-1-1909 for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- alleging that the period for redemption was fixed at 21 years; and that the plaintiff being successor-in-interest of the original mortgagor, was entitled to redeem the same. The heirs of the original mortgagor had executed gift deeds in favour of the Gaud Malviya Brahmin Sakal Panch Khargone on 18-11-1961 and 19-12-1961. The plaintiff, therefore, sued in his capacity as manager of the said institution. 3. The defendants in their defence alleged that they were entitled to Rs. 2000/- as damages on account o...
Govindrao Balwantrao Mahadik Vs. Krishnarao Daulatrao Mahadik and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1966MP32
1. This is a defendant's First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 25th of April, 1960 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge Gwalior, in Civil Original Suit No. 6 of 1960.2. The suit was filed by Major Krishnarao Mahadik for possession of a house situate at Dal Bazar, Lashkur, which was on the dale of the suit in the occupation of the defendant No. 1 Govindrao Mahadik. It was alleged that Govindrao Mahadik had executed a mortgage-deed in respect of this house in favour of defendant No. 2. The Gwalior Bank Prop., M/s Bidhichand & Sons on 9-8-1945. The plaintiff claimed cancellation of this deed. He based his claim in respect of the house on an order (Ex. P/2) dated 12-11-1942 of the then Maharaja of Gwalior State. The defendant challenged the plaintiffs title to the house in dispute and pleaded that the plaintiff had misconstrued the order of the then His Highness. The suit proceeded ex parte against the defendant No. 2. The. Gwalior Bank.3. The trial Court held that the h...
Mt. Kanchanbai and anr. Vs. Motichand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1967MP145
P.K. Tare, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants against the decree, dated, 1-9-1961, pass-ed by Shri S. J. Surana, District Judge, Dhar, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 97 of 1960, reversing the decree, dated 30-6-1961, ' passed by Shri R.L. Chandani, Civil Judge, Class H, Badnawar, in Civil Suit No. 17 of 1959.2. The respondents filed a suit for setting aside a gift, dated, 3-10-1956 executed by the first appellant in favour of her daughter-in-law, the second appellant on the ground that it was with intent to defeat the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs had to recover Rs. 2600/-from the first appellant. On 17-9-1956, the plaintiffs served a notice making demand for repayment; and in default a suit would be filed. After the receipt of the notice, Mst. Kanchanbai executed the said gift in favour of her daughter-in-law in order to defeat and delay the debt of the plaintiffs.3. The appellants in their defence denied that the gift was made with intent to delay or defeat the debt of the plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›