Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP79; 1969MPLJ349
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the Judgment of Mr. Justice Pandey.2. Nathuram has a field, Khasra No. 490, at village Mohana in Datia District Siyasharan's field. Khasra No. 489, is adjacent to it. Siyasharan made an application before the Tehsildar on the allegation that Nathuram by constructing a Bandhiya blocked his way which he had been using for long. This application was decided by the Tehsildar in favour of Siyasharan. The Tehsildar directed Nathuram to remove the obstruction and clear the way within 10 days. Nathuram appealed but did not succeed. Eventually, he filed a suit in the Civil Court for declaration that he is entitled to maintain the Bandhiya and for a declaration that the orders of the Tehsildar and the Revenue Commissioner are inoperative and ineffective. Siyasharan challenged the maintainability of the suit in the Civil Court and urged that it was barred. This objection found favour with the trial Court, the first appellate Court, and also the learned Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP36; 1969MPLJ361
S.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband whose petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed by the District Judge, Gwalior.2. The petitioner aged about 30 years is a painter by profession. He was married to the respondent on 17-6-49. The parties are Hindus and the marriage was according to the usual Hindu rites. After the marriage the parties lived together in Lashkar.3. The case of the petitioner-appellant is that on 15-12-1951 the respondent went away and did not return. He served the respondent with a notice on 7-12-1964 calling upon her to come and live with him but she refused to accept the notice. Thus, according to him the respondent has withdrawn herself, from his society without any reasonable excuse. He, therefore, claimed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.4. The respondent contested the suit on a number of grounds. She alleged that the marriage was liable to be annulled as she was a minor at the time of her marriage end the consent of h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP182
Singh, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation calls into question a notification dated 24th May, 1968 issued by the Regional Transport Authority Indore, the respondent to this petition, inviting applications for grant of permits on the routes mentioned in the notification and fixing ceiling on these routes.2. The impugned notification has been issued by the respondent under Section 47 (3) and Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The notification is challenged on the ground that it includes routes and areas falling within the schemes Nos. 16, 36, 47 and 53, which were approved under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown from Annexure 'D' to the petition how numerous routes falling within the schemes have been included in the notification by the respondent.3. A scheme made under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has the force of law: H. C. Narayanappa v. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP34; 1969MPLJ256
1. The appellant's suit for sale against the respondents was in respect of mortgaged property on foot of a mortgage dated September 2, 1956, for Rs. 17,000/-, and another mortgage dated July 6, 1947, for Rs. 5,000/-. The agreed rate of interest under the former was 10 annas per cent per month and under the latter 12 annas per cent per month. The suit was instituted on April 19, 1957. The defendants resisted the suit. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree for sale for the entire claim of the plaintiff i.e. principal sum Rs. 22,000/- and interest at the stipulated rates from the date of the execution of the mortgages to the date of the institution of the suit. But from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of preliminary decree it allowed 3% per annum (4 annas per cent per month).2. In this appeal the plaintiff's grievance is that there was no justification for not allowing interest pendente lite at the contractual rates as it was mandatory under Order 34, Rule 11, C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP127; [1970]75ITR227(MP); 1969MPLJ69
Dixit, C.J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Appellate Tribunal the question propounded for our decision is 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the allowance of Rs. 12,000/- received by the assessee was not exempt from Income-tax in the hands of the assessee?'2. The material facts are that the assessee Raj Kumar Bikram Bahadur Singh is the younger brother of Shri Birendra Bahadur Singh, the ex-Ruler of the Khairagarh State which was before its merger in December 1947 with the old Central Provinces and Berar one of the Chhatisgarh States, The assessee is also a member of the Indian Police Service and is at present holding the post of District Superintendent of Police. On 18th November 1943 Shri Birendra Bahadur Singh, who was then the Ruler of the Khairagarh State, made an order with regard to the grant of a monthly allowance to the assessee. The order was as follows:'Whereas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971MP145
Oza, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Claims Tribunal, Indore, awarding compensation in respect of the death of one Anilkumar, the eldest son of respondent No. 1, in a motor accident. This appeal is filed by the two appellants, one being the owner of the truck with which the accident occurred and the other the insurance company with which the said vehicle was insured. The driver of the truck has been joined as respondent No. 2.2. The applicant-respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Claims Tribunal, Indore, alleging that on 30th May 1963, at about 6.30 P.M., his son Anilkumar, aged 13 years, was going on a bicycle from east to west on the road which runs on the southern side of Pagnis-Paiga Municipal Garden, Indore, Truck No. MPE 6888, which was then being driven by the respondent-Shantilal alias Sampatlal, came from the south and was moving towards the north on the road which meets the road on which Anilkumar was proceeding. When at the cross-roads Anilku...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP177; 1969MPLJ516
Singh, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Liquor Contractor, by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution calls into question the order of the Collector, Satna passed on July 1, 1968 cancelling his licence to sell country liquor by retail at village Babupur.2. The petitioner's licence was for a period of one year from 1st April, 1968 to 31st March, 1969. He was to keep his shop in village Babupur, but its exact location was not mentioned in the licence. From, form of the license prescribed under the Excise Rules, it appears that ordinarily every licence in a schedule appended to it contains a description of the site and the boundaries where the licensee has to keep his shop, but in the case of the petitioner the schedule was left blank. This omission in the case of the petitioner gave rise to disputes regarding the location of the shop. According to the petitioner, he all along kept his shop in village Babupur, but according to the Excise Inspector, the shop was outside t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP174; 1969MPLJ146
Singh, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1. The Rewa Coal Fields Limited owns Burhar and Amlai Collieries in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Agent of the petitioner No. 1. The Petitioners by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge a reference of an industrial dispute between them and their workmen made by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. It seems that the petitioners dismissed seventeen of their workmen with effect from 9th June, 1964. An industrial dispute was raised on behalf of the workmen before the Conciliation Officer. No settlement was arrived at and the Conciliation Officer reported the matter to the Central Government. The Government, however, declined to refer the dispute to any tribunal. This order was made on 16th June, 1965 under Section 12(5) of the Act, and it is stated in it that the Government of India do not consider the dispute fit for reference to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP114; 1969MPLJ166
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 326 of 1967.2. These are two applications tinder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by persons employed as Head Cashiers in the various Branches in the State of Madhya Pradesh of the State Bank of India challenging the validity of Rule 18 (1) of the State Bank of India (Sub-Account ants and Head Cashiers) Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules) and of certain clauses of an agreement which each of the petitioners was required to execute in terms of Rule 18 (1) for indemnifying the State Bank of India against any loss or damages caused by his own acts or omissions or by the acts or omissions on the part of the Cash Department Staff employed under him. The petitioners pray that Rule 18 (1) and the impugned clauses of the agreement be declared invalid and inoperative and the respondents be restrained from enforcing them. The third petitioner Tribhangamarari Pal in Misc. Petition No. 453 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP147; 1969CriLJ980; 1969MPLJ86
Surajbhan, J.1. This appeal, as also Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1965, which too has been filed by the Municipal Council, Raipur, against the same respondent, both arise out of a common judgment of acquittal of the respondent, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, in two different appeals, viz. Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1964 and No. 148 of 1964, arising out of Criminal case No. 338 of 1963 and No. 344 of 1963 respectively, and as common questions of law are involved in both of them, they were heard together and this judgment shall govern the disposal of the other appeal also.2. The Municipal Council, Raipur, has filed these appeals under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent, dated 5-12-65, in the aforesaid two appeals which arose from Criminal CasesNos. 338/63 and 344/63, and in each ofthose cases, the respondent was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herei...
Tag this Judgment!