Madhya Pradesh Court September 1966 Judgments
Ganga Prasad Verma and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP22
Bhave, J. 1. A Notification No. 2292/1140, dated 18-4-64, was. issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of 462.22 acres of land of village Chhawani, near Bhilai. The land is proposed to be acquired for being used as industrial area. That notification also directs that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply. Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued. The petitioners by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seek a writ of certiorari for quashing both the notifications.2. The contention of the petitioners is that in the land notified under Section 4 of the Act certain abadi land and land covered under water (tanks) is also included. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 the State Government can direct that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply if the land notified is arable or waste land only. The land reserved for abadi or the land...
Tag this Judgment!Tahsil Co-operative Agricultural Association Ltd. Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP185; 1968MPLJ325
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit for recovery of damages for short delivery and losses in connection with a consignment of 1005 bags of Ammonium Sulphate weighing 2715 mds. and 8 Srs booked at Bombay (Central Railway) to Dhamtari (South Eastern Railway). The consignment was booked on 11th June 1957.2. When the plaintiff took delivery of the goods at Dhamtari Railway station on 25th June 1957, it was found that one bag (2 Mds. 30 Srs.) was missing, 300 bags torn and badly damaged; 3 bags were totally empty.3. The plaintiff sued the Central Railway and the South Eastern Railway. The former did not enter appearance and the case proceeded ex parte against it. The latter resisted the suit. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff on the issues regarding consignment of goods, their weight, shortage and the quantum of loss incurred. However, it dismissed the suit on three grounds :--(1) no notice was given to the Central Railway; (2) the notice given to the South...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Vs. Ramcharanlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP237
Surajbhan, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendant against whom a decree for his ejectment has been passed The mortgagee whose tenant he claimed to be has also filed an appeal (being F.A. 15 of 1963) against the decree for redemption But his appeal is confined only to the costs of the suit awarded against him. However, as both the appeals wise out of the same suit and judgment, the disposal of the instant appeal shall govern the disposal of both the appeals. 2. The plaintiff-respondents are the purchasers of equity of redemption from the heirs and legal representatives of the original mortgagor. Shyamlal Kachar, who had mortgaged the properly consisting of 2 1/2 shops, with Harprashad, appellant in the connected appeal, on four different mortgage deeds, and the total amount of the mortgage money was Rs. 10,500. The mortgages carried interest in lieu of rent. The original mortgagor, Shyamlal, failed to pay the rent, with the result that Harprashad, mortgagee, brought a civil suit, No. 84 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Hukumchand Vs. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC92(MP)
ORDERR.J. Bhave, J.1. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family trading under the name and style 'Messrs Ratanlal Hukumchand' at Ujjain and is a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and was also a registered dealer under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950 (Act No. 30 of 1950) which has been repealed by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The Sales Tax Officer, Ujjain, for the assessment year 1957-58 assessed the petitioner-firm, by an order, dated 30th September, 1961. By another order, dated 28th November, 1961, the said officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act. The petitioner filed revision petitions against the said orders before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore. The revisional authority modified the assessment order to certain extent and also reduced the penalty. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Narayan Choudhari and anr. Vs. Industrial Court (A.W. Kanwadikar) ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ105MP
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. The two petitioner, who are employed as masons in the Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, filed separate applications under Section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in the labour court, Raipur, for restoration of the reduction effected by the management, namely, respondent 3, the General Manager of the Hindustan Steel, Ltd., in their wages as a measure of punishment after finding that some charges had been established against them.2. The labour court found that the reduction in the wages of the applicants was an ' 1llegal change ' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Acc and accordingly made an order directing respondent 3 to withdraw the ' change ' and restore the reduction in the wages of the petitioners. Thereupon, respondent 3 preferred revision petitions before the industrial court, Indore, against the common decision of the labour court granting the petitioners' applications under Section 61 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Nathuram Dansena Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP207; (1968)ILLJ660MP
Dixit, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case challenges the legality of an order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh Division, on 23rd November 1964 dismissing him from service, and prays for the issue of a writ of certuirari for quashing that order.2. The applicant was employed as a Forest Guard in Raigarh Division. In 1964 a departmental enquiry was held against him on the charges that he did not report illicit felling and the 'damage of standards' during a certain period and was thus guilty of gross neglect of duty, and that he also connived at the illicit felling of trees done by Bansidhar Sharma to whom Coupe VIII Putukachar had been sold. The departmental enquiry was held by Shri Hazara Singh, Range Officer, Udaipur Range. At the end of the enquiry, he found the two charges to be prima facie established against the petitioner Thereafter on a perusal of the report of the Range Officer and agreeing with his findings the Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh Division, issued ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Chopra and Co. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP124; [1967]19STC46(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. The petitioner-firm in this case seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur. on 31st March 1961 assessing it to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), in respect of its turnover for the period from 12th November 1958 to 31st October 1959. An appeal preferred by the applicant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount of tax assessed before the admission of the appeal The petitioner's revision petition before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax also failed The applicant prays that the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax bo also quashed.2. The applicant-firm carries on the business of buying and selling Umber and is a 'dealer' registered under Section 7 of the Act. For the period from 12th November 1958 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Baluram Daluram and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP130
Bhave, J. 1. This Order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 108 of 1966.2. The question raised by these two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is as to the-validity of two Schemes described as Scheme No. 53 and Scheme No. 49 published by the State Government under Section 68D (3; of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68C of the Act the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) published in the Gazette, dated 12th February 1965. Scheme No. 53 for the running and operation by the Corporation of road transport services on the routes specified in the Scheme. On the same date, another Notification under Section 68C containing proposals propounding another Scheme, namely, Scheme No. 49, was published by the Corporation for the running and operation by the Corporation of services on the routes specified in that Scheme.These n...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sugga Bai and ors. Vs. Smt. Hiralal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1969MP32; 1968MPLJ840
P.K. Tare, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlords, against the decree dated 22-9-1962, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Appeal No. 69-A of 1960, re-numbered as Civil Appeal No. 73-A of 1961, affirming the decree dated 18-10-1960, passed by the Ist Civil Judge IInd Class, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 28-A of 1960.2. The appellants purchased the suit house from Shyam Krishna and others. Out of the vendors one Amitabh was a minor. The family of the vendors is indisputably governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. The sale deed Ex. F/13 was executed on 30-5-1958, wherein although the minor's father was a party to the sale, the minor was represented through his next friend the mother. After the appellants purchased the house, they served a notice of attornment dated 20-6-1958 (Ex. P/1) on Hiralal, the predecessor of the present respondents, who was a tenant of the vendors. A similar notice of the same date Ex. P/3 was served by the vendors as w...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Manmati and ors. Vs. Mohan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1969MP7; 1969MPLJ125
ORDERS.P. Bhargava, J.1. The plaintiff-non-applicant Mohan instituted a suit in the trial Court against Balaram, whose legal representatives on record now are applicants Nos. 1(a) to (e), and the other three applicants Raspalsingh, Mansaram and Nanki. In the suit the plaintiff-non-applicant impleaded his sons Mahajanlal and Lilaprasad also as defendants. They are non-applicants 2 and 3. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming general partition of the joint family property and separate possession thereof. The joint family property comprised of agricultural lands in seven villages including the village Jajang and five houses which are situate in two of these seven villages.2. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff and the first defendant Balaram constituted a joint Hindu coparcenary and held the properties which are described in paragraph 4 of the plaint as their joint family properties since the death of their father Sobharam; that the defendant Balaram was the manager of the jo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »