Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Ramdayal Kallooram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1090
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. The accused-applicant Ramdayal was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, under Section 7, read with Section 16, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling in the town of Jabalpur, on the morning of the 28th of October 1961, at about 6.30 a.m., adulterated milk, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, together with a fine of Rs. 1,000, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, taking into consideration that the applicant had two previous convictions to his credit. On appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, maintained both the conviction and the sentence. He has now come up in revision to this Court against his conviction and sentence aforesaid.2. According to Gujarati (P.W. 1), the Food Inspector of the Corporation of Jabalpur, while he was sitting at Tula Ram Chowk to take samples of milk for the purpose of detecting adulteration, he found that the accused was...
Smt. Sumatra Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP65; 1965MPLJ531
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. Certain land of the appellant, together with a house standing thereon, has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Balaghat. The acquisition is for the purposes of a school. For her khasra No. 310/1, area 0.68 acre, and the house standing thereon, the Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 29 May 1956, assessed Rs. 1131/- as compensation payable to her. She did not accept the award and applied for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The Additional District Judge, Balaghat disposed of the reference in the following manner.He found that the award made by the LandAcquisition Officer was based purely on thereport of the Revenue Inspector and his ownimpressions which he formed on spot inspection. It appeared to him that the LandAcquisition Officer did not at all apply hismind to the question of valuation and justaccepted the report of the Revenue Inspectorand in doing so the Land Acquisition Officer 'abdicated his fu...
Komal Chand and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP20; 1965MPLJ606
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority pursuant to an order made by a Division Bench of this Court on 9th January 1962 in Misc. Petition No. 283 of 1961 directing the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to state the case of the petitioners for the opinion of this Court on the following questions :1. Whether after the registration of a document the registering authority can hold an enquiry regarding the value of the property covered by the deed and call upon the executant to pay the deficit stamp duly? 2. Whether the stamp duty payable on the deed executed by the petitioner Komalchand is as for a partition deed or for a settlement deed? 2. The material facts are that after the registration on 31st October 1956 of a deed described as 'Takseemnama' (deed of partition) executed by the petitioner Komalchand, the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur, sent th...
Gulam Abbas and ors. Vs. Tiyabali Bhai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP92; 1965MPLJ787
Newaskar, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution. 2. Material facts are that on 29-12-1899 three brothers Yusufali, Mohammadali and Alibhai jointly mortgaged two shops situated at Jaora with Khan Bahadur Yarmohammad Khan. The mortgage was usufructury and possession was delivered on the same day. In 1909 Khan Bahadur Yarmohammad died. His daughter Iftikhar Zamani Begum married Nawab Iftikharali of Jaora. She died in the year 1918 leaving her husband as the sole heir. The Nawab continued in possession till December 1945 when he sold his interest in the property to the defendants. The legal representatives of the mortgagors filed the present suit for redemption of the mortgage which was resisted by the purchasers from the Nawab. The suit was initially dismissed on the ground of limitation. However it was ultimately held by this Court that the claim for redemption was not barred by limitation and a decree for redemption was passed. The defendants now seek cert...
Nazir S/O Ahmed and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967MP49; 1967CriLJ203
ORDERS.B. Sen, J.1. A challan was filed by Police Ujjain under Sections 307, 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code against the applicants, who are seven in number. The committal proceedings were started under Section 207-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate after examining prosecution witnesses found that the evidence and the documents did not disclose any ground for commitment; but he was of the view that he should try the case himself on charges under Sections 324, 325, 147, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code and framed the charges accordingly against them. 2. All the applicants pleaded not guilty to the charges and the Magistrate fixed the case For 30-10-1963 for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses alreardy examined on behalf of the prosecution. The witnesses, however, could not be cross-examined for various reasons. 3. On 16-6-1964 an application was submittted by the applicants that the Magistrate decided to try the case himself and therefore, the evidence recorded by ...
Kailashchandra Tejpal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967MP149
Dixit, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, pursuant to two orders passed by this Court on applications made by the assessee Kailashchandra Tejpal under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requiring the Tribunal to state the case and refer to this Court certain questions arising out of two orders of the Tribunal disposing of appeals arising out of assessment proceedings against the assessee for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1956-57. As the facts are common, the Tribunal has made a consolidated reference. The questions of law, which the Tribunal was directed to refer to this Court for the assessment year 1964-55 are-'(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was a dealer in shares or an investor? (ii) Whether the loss of Rs. 8,506 on account of the sale of 80 shares was a business loss?' The questions propounded for the assessment year 1956-57 are-'(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumst...
Drugs Inspector Vs. Chimanlal and Co. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1968MP238; 1968CriLJ1561; 1968MPLJ489
Pandey, J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by Newaskar and Sen JJ. who found themselves unable to concur in the view expressed in the following observations made by another Division Bench of this court in State v. Daulatsingh, AIR 1957 Madh Pra 72.'There are two answers to this contention. The present application for leave to appeal and the proposed appeal are by the State and not by the Forest Ranger, the complainant, Secondly, Sub-section (3) of Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, confers the right of appeal to the complainant in a case instituted upon the complaint of a private person and not upon the complaint of a public servant or of a court. The prosecution on the complaint of a Court or of a public servant acting in the discharge of his official duties being one by the State, and the State having the right of appeal in any case under Section 417 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, the words 'complaint' and 'complainant' in Sub-section (3) can refer only to a private...
Union of India (Uoi) Representing the General Manager, South Eastern R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP52
Bhargava, J.1. The first respondent had filed a suit in the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Durg, claiming Rs. 13,500/-from the Union of India representing the General Manager, South-Eastern Railway, Calcutta, Central Railway, Bombay and the Western Railway, Bombay. The claim was decreed to the extent of Rs. 12,500/- with costs. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Union of India representing the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta, has filed this appeal.2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff-respondent is as follows: One consignment containing 101 bags of tobacco, weighing 133 maunds and 33 seers, was despatched by Chimmanlal Somabhai and Company on 11-7-1959 from Bhalej Railway Station to be delivered to the plaintiff at Durg. On 7-8-1959, the plaintiff approached the railway authorities at Durg for the assessment delivery of the consignment and submitted an application for that purpose alleging that due to negligence or misconduct of the railway, d...
Damumal Handaldas and anr. Vs. Shevantibai W/O Budichand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1965MP223; 1965MPLJ406
Pandey, J. 1. This revision comes before us on a reference made by one of us (Pandey J.) for resolving the difference of opinion which has been expressed in two Division Bench decisions of this Court on the questions of relevancy and admissibility of certain documents. 2. The material facts, shortly stated, are these: The applicants, who occupy two ground floor rooms of the non-applicants' house No. 131 of Imli Bazar, Indore, in return for a monthly rent of Rs. 20 besides electricity charges, filed a suit under Section 9(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, for fixation of the reasonable annual rent. The non-applicants resisted the claim made in that suit. Relying upon certified copies of the relevant entries in the Assessment Note Book (Ex P-12-A) and the Assessment List Register (Ex. P-13) and the oral evidence of the Assessment Officer, R.S. Date P.W. 3, the Rent Controlling Authority held that, in 1940-41, the rent of the accommodation was Rs. 6/- only and fixe...
Ramsingh Gangaram Vs. State of M.P. Through Chief Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP24; 1965MPLJ716
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the decree, dated 30-6-1961, passed by Shri S.N. Chaturvedi, Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Suit No 1 of 1956, renumbered as 3 of 1960. dismissing the plaintiff's claim mainly on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. One, Mst. Moti, a widow, owned about 261 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land. She died heirless. Therefore, the lands escheated to the then Dhar State. Her death had taken place some time in the year 1923 Steps were being taken to have the lands allotted by public auction. In the year 1944, the Government of Dhar State decided to hold public auction for the purpose of allotment in favour of the highest bidder.3. The land was decided to be sold in five different lots. Regarding lots Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the present appellant was the highest bidder. Regarding lot No. 4 one, Kanhaiyalal was the highest bidder, while regarding lotNo. 5, one, Bherusingh was the highest bidder. The auction was held ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »