Madhya Pradesh Court February 1967 Judgments
Ramdhara and anr. Vs. Mst. Phulwatibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1967
Reported in: 1970CriLJ286
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This second appeal arises, from a suit for damages for defamation. The plaintiff's case was that relations between the parties were strained and a few days before the incident there was a quarrel between Ayodhya Prasad, her son, on the one hand, and Shivgovind, husband of Mst. Ramdhara (defendant 1), and Moortlal, husband of Mst. Sushila (defendant 2), on the other hand. Ayodhya Prasad. accompanied by Jagatram, went to Police Station to lodge a report about that quarrel. Jagatram is Ayodhya Prasad's Mamiya Susar, (wife's maternal uncle). Four or five days thereafter, when on the evening of the incident, the plaintiff had been to bring her cattle and buffalo, she happened to come across the first defendant on her way. On seeing her the first defendant abused her filthily saying 'Rand Tune Chhokara Ko Jagatram Ke Sath Report Ko Kahe Ko Bhej Di. Tu To Dari Chhinal. Tu To Jagatram Ki Lugai Hai. Usane Tere Ko Rakha Hai.' Defendant 2 also happened to be there and she associa...
Tag this Judgment!Kadorilal and anr. Vs. Sukhlal Sajan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968MP4
ORDER1. This revision petition came up for hearing before our learned brother Newaskar, J., who was of the opinion that an important question of law was involved and that the revision should be placed before a larger Bench to be nominated by the Honourable the Chief Justice. Accordingly, this case has been placed before us for disposal. 2. The applicants are plaintiffs. They filed a suit, out of which this revision arises, for recovery of certain amount on the basis of two documents, styled as promissory notes. The document dated 19th June 1964 (Ex P-2) is not sufficiently stamped as a promissory note. The non-applicant, therefore, objected to its admission in evidence. The trial Court held that it was a promissory note and being insufficiently stamped was inadmissible in evidence. The applicant's contention was that it was a bond, as It was attested by witnesses and that it could be validated on payment of penalty, and that the trial Court was wrong in holding the document Inadmissibl...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kantilal Mohanlal and Brothers
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968MP20; [1967]19STC377(MP)
Bhave, J. 1. The Sales Tax Tribunal(Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh) has made this reference under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh. The question referred for our decision is:'Can the penalty for late submission of returns in Form V appended to the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, be imposed under S 17(3) of thf Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. 1958?'2. For the period, 15th December 1960 to 7th November 1961 the non-applicant assessee was assessed to Central Sales Tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Gwalior, Circle No 2. In the said assessment, the Sales Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000 on the assesses under Section 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. 1958. on the ground that the assessee failed to file the returns within the period prescribed by Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Tn appeal, the Board of Revenut set asidp the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gourishanker Vs. Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968MP39
Dixit, C.J.1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner, who holds kerosene and diesel oil agency from the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and does business in Narsimhapur, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued by the Government on 14th July 1966 under Section 130(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) sanctioning the abolition of the terminal tax and toll tax which had been imposed by the Municipal Council, Narsimhapur, on 12th April 1916 under the Central Provinces Municipal Act, 1903. He also prays that the 'Narsimhapur Municipality Octroi (Assessment, Collection and Refund) Rules, 1966' framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 127(2), Section 133, Sections 355 (1) and 356 of the Act be declared to be invalid and the respondents be restrained from giving effect to those Rules, and further that the respondent Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Khushilal Vs. Board of Revenue Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1967MP201
ORDERR.J. Bhave, J.1. The respondent No. 5 held Khasra Nos. 948, 950 and 951 (area 31.16 acres) situate at Pul Bogda, Bhopal, as a Muafidar in the erstwhile State of Bhopal. The petitioner was a sub-tenant (a Shikmi) of the respondent No. 5 in respect of the above said land. The petitioner's case is that under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, the respondent No. 5 was the 'occupant' of the said land, of which the petitioner was a Shikmi, and hence under Section 185 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, he became an 'occupancy tenant' of the land and under Section 190 of the said Code he acquired Bhumiswami rights. The petitioner, therefore, applied before the Tahsil-dar, Huzur, by an application under Section 109 read with S- 190 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami By an order dated 24th June 1963 the Tahsildar held that the Bhumiswami rights accrued to the petitioner and directed him to deposit compensation equivalent to 15-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›