Madhya Pradesh Court February 1968 Judgments
Kodu, Son of Panchhi Dhimar Vs. Banmali, Son of Mohan Kewat, Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP20; 1969CriLJ201; 1968MPLJ398
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal on special leave granted under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant filed a complaint under Sections 497/498/109, Penal Code, against the respondent in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Katni. It is alleged in the complaint that Mst. Itiya is the married wife of the complainant. Banmali, accused No. 1, has kept Mst. Itiya as his wife and he is committing adultery and is liable under Section 497/ 498, Penal Code. Mst. Charki, accused No. 2, is the mother of Mst. Itiya. She connived and abetted the offence under Sections 497 and 493, Penal Code.2. After recording prosecution evidence, the learned trial Magistrate, on 29th September 1964, framed a charge under Section 497, Penal Code, against Banmali. The accused pleaded not guilty and desired that the prosecution witnesses be recalled for further cross-examination. The learned Magistrate directed that summons be issued on payment of 'Talbana'. The 9th November ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. P.V. Jagannath Rao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP204; (1968)IILLJ792MP
Singh, J. 1. The respondent entered service as a Guard in 1941 in the Bengal Nagpur Railway and after nationalization of Railways in 1944, he became a servant of the Government of India. By an order of the District Transportation Officer, the respondent's services were terminated with effect from 18th July, 1946. The respondent then instituted Civil Suit No. 257-A of 1949 on 12th September, 1949 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, claiming a declaration that the order of termination of his services was illegal. This suit was decreed by the Civil Judge on 25th August, 1951, and this decree was ultimately confirmed by the High Court in P. V. Jagannath Rao v. Union of India, Second Appeal No. 492 of 1953, D/- 13-12-1957 (Madh Pra) which was decided by one of us (Shrivastava, J.). It was found by the High Court that the order of termination of respondent's services was grounded on misconduct and amounted to dismissal. It was further found that no inquiry was held against the res...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitatio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP159; 1968MPLJ387
Bhave, J.1. Shop No. 142 (bearing Municipal No. 253) of Ward No. 7 at Burhanpur was owned by a firm of 'Messrs. Haji Karim Noor Mohammad' carrying on business at Itwari Bazar, Nagpur. Two partners of the firm, namely, Abdul Sattar Mohamed and Haii Ibrahim Abdul Shakoor, were doing business at Karachi since 1946. They continued to remain at Karachi even after the partition of India. These two partners were treated as 'evacuees' The Assistant Custodian of Evacuee property Burhanur therefore, took possession of the abovesaid pro-perty and referred the matter to the Competent Officer, Nagpur, for separation of the evacuees' interest in the said firm.The Competent Officer thereupon issued to the firm a notice; under Section 6 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, in response to which the plaintiffs, who are the remaining partners, preferred their claims. The objection taken by the plaintiffs in response to the notice was that as the property was not declared 'evacuee property', it...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Singh Beharisingh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP212; 1968MPLJ392
Dixit, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Khan J. arises out of a suit filed by the appellant against the State of Madhya Pradesh for compensation for a breach of a forest contract taken by the appellant from the respondent-State. 2. On 13th December 1950 a contract was concluded between the appellant and the respondent-State under which the appellant was given a rightto fell and removes trees in a forest coupe in Sheopur district for a period ending on 30th June 1952. The appellant worked the forest area for some time until 16th June 1951. The Conservator of Forests imposed a penalty on the appellant for indulging in illegal felling and on 16th June 1951 made an order prohibiting the appellant from working the coupe till he had paid the penalty amount. The appellant then preferred an appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forests against the order of the Conservator of Forests imposing penalty on him. In that appeal he prayed that the order imposing penalty on him b...
Tag this Judgment!Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Regional Transport ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP148a
Dixit, C.J.1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is for the issue of a writ of certi-orari for quashing an order dated 24th November 1967 of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, granting a temporary permit for a period of four months to the respondent No. 3 Ashwani Raikumar Mining and Trading Company. Jagdalpur, for the running of a stage carriage on Jagdalpur-Kirandul route.2. The route from Jagdalpur-Kirandul covers the track from Jagdalpur to Geedam and then Geedam to Bailadila via Kumarras and Kameli. As held by this Court in Rajkumar Gurwara v. R. T A. Raipur Misc. Petn. No. 259 of 1967 D/- 5-7-1967 (Madh Pra) Bailadila and Kirandul are really one and the same terminus. Under a Scheme notified under Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. the Corporation has been given the exclusive right of plying services on Jagdalpur-Bhopalpatnam route. The route runs through Geedam and thus it con...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Kesrimal Ratanlal Sarda and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP199; 1968MPLJ338
ORDERShrivastava, J. 1. These three petitions for revision (Civil Revisions Nos. 99. 138 and 139 of 1967) under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act are against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon. They were first heardby one of us (Shrivastava J.); but as there was some difference of opinion between the different Judges of this Court on the interpretation of Section 77C of the Indian Railways Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Railways Act'), he made recommendation under Rule 9, Chapter 1 of the High Court Rules for placing the cases before a larger Bench and that is how the matter has come before us.2. The following facts are no longer in dispute in all the three cases:(i) the plaintiffs had booked at railway risk a consignment of groundnut oil from Kurnool to Rajnandgaon; (ii) the oil was contained in old used tins with dents and the tins were defectively packed. (iii) the condition of defective packing was noted in the forwarding note; (iv) the oi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. Manikchand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP150
Bhave, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant. The trial Court has passed a decree for specific performance.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2), when they were minors, through their guardian. Smt. Phuli-bai, their mother Smt. Phulibai had entered into an agreement dated 30-9-1961 on behalf of the minors for purchasing house property from the defendant (appellant) for a consideration of Rs. 11,000. Bs. 1,000 were paid towards earnest and the rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale-deed. The sale-deed was to be executed by the defendant by Kar-tik Sudi Poonam. Samvat 2018 (22nd Nov-mber 1961'). The relevant terms of the agreement were:'(a) The purchaser shall construct a partition wall at his own cost and in the presence and help of the vendor. (b) The door towards the portion of Mangal Chand will be closed by the purchaser on his own cost and in presence of the vendor. (c) The vendor would see that his tenant Hardikar vacates...
Tag this Judgment!Gopilal and anr. Vs. Sitaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP196
Dixit, C.J. 1. The facts and circumstances in which this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against a decision of Tare J. has been filed are that in execution proceedings of a money decree against the respondent-judgment-debtors certain property belonging to the judgment-debtors was sold and purchased by the second appellant Rajaram Thereupon, the judgment-debtors filed applications under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also under Section 47 of the Code for setting aside the sale. On 5th February 1965 those applications were dismissed by the executing Court for default of appearance of the judgment-debtors. Thereafter, on the same day the judgment-debtors filed applications for restoration of their applications under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These applications were also rejected by the District Judge, Sagar, by an order passed on 11th February 1966. The judgment-debtors then filed a revision petition i...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP155; 1968CriLJ948; 1968MPLJ402
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 the District Magistrate. Sagar, on 23rd March 1967 under sections 4 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1965, (hereinafter called the Act), directing him to remove himself on or before 2nd April 1967 outside the Sagar district and the contiguous districts of Chhatarpur, Damoh, Narsinsghpur, Raisen Vidisha and Guna, and not to enter or return to the aforesaid districts for a period of one year. The petitioner filed an appeal to the State Government against this order of the District Magistrate. But it was not entertained on the ground that it was barred by time.2. This petition was heard by us on 22nd January 1968. At the end of the hearing, we recorded an order allowing the petition and quashing the order dated the 23rd March 1967 of the District Magistrate, Sagar, saying that we would give our reasons in su...
Tag this Judgment!Deepchand Daga Vs. Income-tax Officer, C-ward and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: [1970]77ITR661(MP); 1969MPLJ677
Sen, J. 1. By this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Deepchand Daga, applies for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing a notice dated 18th June, 1965, served by the Income-tax Officer, ' C'-Ward, Raipur, upon the Hindu undivided family 'Deepchand Phoolchand Daga, Raipur ', under the provisions of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), for a writ in the nature of prohibition to restrain the Income-tax Officer from proceeding with the threatened assessment, and for an appropriate writ, direction and order asking him to withdraw the said notice. 2. The facts leading to this petition may be shortly stated. On 19th September, 1956, the customs authorities seized 528 tolas, 112 grams of gold in the shape of ingots after it was brought to the National Refinery, by M/s. Poonamchand Gulabchand, Bombay, for purposes of remelting, acting on prior information that smuggled gold was being taken from Raipur for that purpose. The gol...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›