Madhya Pradesh Court February 1965 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.
Prakash Yadeo Rao Govardhan Vs. the Principal, Sheo Bhagwan Rameshwar ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1965MP217; 1965MPLJ387
Dixit, C.J. 1. The petitioner in this caseis pursuing B. A, Three Year Degree Course as a student of Sheo Bhagwan RameshwarPrasad Arts College, Bilaspur. While the Collegewas affiliated to'the Saugar University, the petitioner appeared for the Preliminary Examination held by that University in March 1963.He failed thereat. He also failed at the Supplementary examination held by the University in October 1968. On 2nd July1963 the Vice-Chancellor of the SaugarUniversity made an order. purporting to act under Section 14(4) of the University of Saugar Act, 1946. permitting provisionaladmission to the next higher class of studentswho had failed in one or two subjects or whobad obtained a compartment, or who had failedin the aggregate, subject to the condition thatthey would be reverted to the lower class 'ifthey failed to clear the compartment or passthe Supplementary Examination' Again, on8th February 1964 the Vice-Chancellor madean order with regard to the continuance of freshstudents in ...
Ramcharan Bille Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Tad-gud Co-operative Federati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ877MP
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by respondent 1, the Madhya Pradesh State Tad-Gud Co-operative Federation, Ltd., Ujjain, on 25 March 1963 terminating his services with effect from 10 May 1962.2. The petitioner was employed by the federation in a temporary capacity as Tad-Gud guide. He was posted at Kareli. On 25 March 1963, the federation passed an order terminating the petitioner's services as from 10 May 1962. The order stated that on a previous occasion the petitioner had attended a conference In the Mysore State without permission and without obtaining any leave, that for this unauthorized absence and attendance at the conference he was warned that In the event of repetition of such a conduct, his service would be discharged, and that despite this warning the applicant was again found to be visiting Ujjain and other places without intimating the federat...
Kishorsingh Anarsingh Vs. Tej Singh Dhvansingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1967MP120
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. Among the various grounds urged in this application the only one on which it was admitted for hearing was whether Government should be impleaded either as a necessary party or at least as a proper party. As it appears, the respondent is not keen on impleading Government unless there is an express order by this Court to this effect. The question is whether it is a necessary party: the parties have argued this case on that basis, The question before us is:'Whether in a suit for the setting aside of the revenue sale for the realisation of Government dues, the Government should also be impleaded along with the auction purchaser?'2. The opposite party owing some dues to the Government on account of takabi and having defaulted the latter look steps under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code to attach and sell in the revenue Court certain agricultural land belonging to the former. Sufficient opportunity was afforded to him to make a deposit of the dues; but he failed....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hukumchand Mannalal and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1965
Reported in: [1965]57ITR213(MP); 1965MPLJ156
DIXIT C.J. - In this reference under section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara, the question referred for our decision is :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the firm Hukumchand & Mannalal Co. could be granted registration under section 26A of the Act ?'The material facts, as found by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and set out in the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal are that the assessee-firm, Sir Hukumchand Mannalal & Co., Indore was constituted on 16th July, 1948, by a deed of partnership of that date for carrying on the business as managing and selling agents of the Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore (hereinafter referred to as the mills). The five partners, according to this deed, were Sir Hukumchand Sarupchand, Chunnilal Onkarmal Ltd., Rajkumarsingh Hukumchand, Ramkumar Morarka & Sons Ltd., and Mannalal Onkarmal. The share of each of the first three partners...
Nemchand Gulabchand Vs. Block Development Officer, (Returning Officer) ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1965MP251
Dixit, C.J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Damoh, on 13th November 1964, excluding the petitioner's name from the voters' list of Gram Sabha, Banwar. 2. The matter arises thus. After the finalisation of the voters' list under Rule 8(4)of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), a programme for the election of Panchas to the Gram Panchayat was fixed according to which the date of filing nomination papers was 10th November 1964, the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers was 21st November 1964, the date of withdrawal of nominations was 23rd November 1964, and the date of polling was 19th December 1964. The applicant filed his nomination papers on 10th November 1964. On 24th October 1964, the respondent 3, Ramjilal, made an application for the exclusion of the petitioner Nemichand...
Lucky Bharat Garage (Private) Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Authority an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1965MP232; 1965MPLJ473
Dixit C.J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the validity of Rule 55 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), imposing a fee in respect of the grant and renewal of a permit, and prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing a demand made on him by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, by letter dated 6th January 1964 asking him to pay a permit fee of Rs. 50/- for each of the six regions where he has been permitted to ply his trucks under permits. 2. The applicant had obtained extension of the permits held by him for the plying of trucks in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. When he applied for a renewal of the permits, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, informed him that he was required to pay a permit fee of Rs. 50/- for renewal of the permit for each region and that ho had also to pay Rs. 120/- as permit fee for th...
Chhotelal Keshavram (by Manager) Vs. Industrial Court (by M.A. Razzaqu ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ733MP
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 581 of 1964.2. These two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the manager of Chhotelal Keshavram, bid manufacturers of Rajnandgaon, are for the issue of writs of certiorari for quashing two orders of the industrial court, dated 10 September 1964, rejecting two revision petitions filed by the applicant against the decisions of the presiding officer of the labour court, Raipur, setting aside the orders passed by the petitioner dismissing the non-applicants, Urukuda and Jamnabai, in the two petitions and directing the petitioner to reinstate them and pay them In full back-wages.3. The two revision petitions were dismissed by the industrial court on the common ground that they were barred by time. The orders of the labour court sought to be revised were passed on 31 January 1964. The applicant despatched the revision petitions by post from Rajnandgaon to Indore on 30 Mar...
Municipal Committee/Council Vs. Meghraj Phojraj Baghrecha and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP104
Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Civil Revisions Nos. 427, 634, 635, 636, 637, 702, 703, 704 and 705, all of 1964. 2. These ten revision petitions by the Municipal Council, Balaghat, are directed against decisions of the Court of Small Causes, Balaghat, giving to the plaintiff-opponent in each case a decree against the Municipal Council for the refund of the amount of terminal tax realized by the Council from each of the plaintiffs in circumstances to be presently stated. By a notification issued on 7th March 1935 under Section 66(1)(o) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, the Municipal Committee of Balaghat imposed terminal tax on import and export of goods by rail or roads within its limits at rates mentioned in the schedule appended to the notification. On 6th December 1960 another notification was issued by Government under Sub-sections (5) and (7) of Section 67 of the Act amending the notification issued on 7th March 1935 so as to ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›