Madhya Pradesh Court March 1968 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.
Mahendralal Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai Steel Project (by General ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ75MP; 1968MPLJ597
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Mahendralal applies for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the industrial court, Madhya Pradesh, Indore, dated 5 September 1966, and for a writ of mandamus directing the General Manager, Hindustan Steel, Ltd., Bhilai, to enforce the order of the labour court, Raipur, dated 28 April 1956.2. The material facts are these. The petitioner was employed as an upper division clerk in the Bhilai Steel Project with effect from 24 October 1956. On 27 September 1958, the project promoted 46 upper division clerks to the post of section assistants, in the higher pay-scale of Rs. 160-10-330, with effect from 20 September 1958 until further orders, and the petitioner Mahendralal was one of them. In the promotion order, it was directed that the seniority of the petitioner, who figured at serial No. 34 in the cadre of upper division clerks would be reckoned from the date of...
Deepchand Tejpal Singh Vs. Narendra Prasad Mittal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1971MP138; 1970MPLJ818
T.P. Naik, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant-tenant arising out of a suit for his ejectment filed by the plaintiff-respondent wherein he had also claimed a decree for arrears of rent alleged to be due from him.2. The suit had been contested by the defendant-tenant, inter alia, on the grounds: (1) that the plaintiff-respondent was not his landlord, for the reasons--(a) that he had not been inducted into the suit premises by him or his pre-decessor-in-title, and(b) that, in any case, the sale by which he claimed title to the suit premises was invalid and conveyed no title to him; and (2) that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid in law as, under a special agreement, he was entitled to a notice of three months.3. The trial Court decreed the suit both for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff-respondent was the landlord of the defendant-appellant tenant.4. The defendant-appellant tenant appealed against the decree for eviction only...
Bhagwati Bai Vs. Yadav Krishna Awadhiya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP23; 1969CriLJ204; 1968MPLJ685
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, and Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. It is alleged by the petitioner that she was married to Yadav Krishna, respondent 1, on 7 March 1964 according to Hindu rites. They have two children; Shyam aged about 2-1/2 years and Ramoo about 5 months. The husband is a lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School, Dongaragarh, district Durg. The parents of the petitioner reside at Jabalpur. Because of his ill-treatment.she came to Jabalpur for her first delivery. This was with the permission of her husband, but she wanted an assurance of good behaviour to be given to her, before she would return. The husband then instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the Court of the District Judge, Rajanandgaon. This was in March 1966. But, when he came to Jabalpur in June 1966, there was conciliation in the presence...
In Re: Keshrimal Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP232; 1968CriLJ1433; 1968MPLJ507
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. Shri M. K. Gautam, Naib-Tahsildar, Mandsaur, by his application dated 7 December 1966 moved this Court for taking action against Keshrimal Gupta for having committed contempt of his Court.2. The applicant is a Naib-Tahsildar. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandsaur, vide his order dated 14 December 1965. In revenue case No. 90-A/73 of 1965-66, appointed him as Enquiry Officer under Section 30 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The case referred to the applicant was of illegal cutting of a tamarind tree by one Chandanmal son of Nathulal of village Afjalpur. The alleged act of Chandanmal was in violation of Rule 2(iii), framed under Section 240 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, liable to be punished under Section 253 of the Code.3. The applicant states that in response to a show cause notice, Chandanmal admitted the alleged act of cutting the tamarind tree but pleaded that he had done so at the instance of the Sarp...
K. Dhruva Rao Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP216; 1969MPLJ339
Singh, J.1. The petitioner K. Dhruva Rao first entered service in 1948 as an Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. After the formation of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the Board from 1st April, 1952. In 1055 the petitioner was promoted substantively to the post of Divisional Engineer and in December, 1963 he was appointed temporarily to the post of Additional Superintending Engineer. In October 1965, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Divisional Engineer and in June 1967 he was dismissed from service. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the orders of reversion and dismissal.2. It must be stated at the outset that the Electricity Board being a statutory corporation the employees of the Board do not qualify for protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. Indeed, that position has ...
Smt. Sugandhi Widow of Dammulal and ors. Vs. Collector, Raipur and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP78; 1968MPLJ766
Singh, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises on the following facts. In Revenue Case No. 13-A/82 of 1961-62 certain area out of plot No. 2/11 of Madhopara. Raipur was acquired for the purposes of the Telegraph Department under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 13th May, 1963 an award of Rs. 55,135.60 P. as compensation was published by the Additional Collector, Raipur and on 12th June, 1963, the entire amount was paid to one Birdhichand Jain who received the same on behalf of his wife Smt. Radhabai who claimed to be the sole owner of the land. One Dammulal, who also claimed exclusive ownership of the acquired area, applied to the Collector on 26th July, 1963 that although he alone was entitled to the land, there was wilful and mala fide omission on the part of the authorities to give him notices of the acquisition proceedings under Sections 9(3) and 12(2) of the Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings were null and void. Dammulal also filed a peti...
Dhansingh and ors. Vs. Smt. Sushilabai Laxminarayan Gujar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1968MP229; 1968MPLJ35
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Bhargava J. dismissing an appeal preferred by the present appellants against an order passed by the Additional District Judge. Hoshangabad, in execution proceedings of a decree for possession of certain lands in favour of the respondent Sushilabai and against the other two respondents Thakurlal and Nanhelal.2. The material facts are that one Ayodhyabai held some sir fields situated in mauza Mangrul, district Hoshangabad, as an occupancy tenant. After her death the fields were inherited bv Baliram as the next reversionary heir. On 24th July 1944 Baliram and his wife Parvatibai executed a deed of gift in respect of the fields in favour of their minor daughter, the respondent Sushilabai. On 13th April 1945 Baliram and his wife, acting on behalf of Sushilabai executed a surrender deed in favour of the respondents Thakurlal and Nanhelal.3. Subsequently. Baliram and Sushilabai, through her next friend Badriprasad, filed a suit ag...
Badrilal Bholaram Vs. B.K. Srivastava, Income-tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1968
Reported in: [1970]77ITR954(MP); 1969MPLJ594
A.P. Sen, J. 1. By this application under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, M/s. Badrilal Bholaram, Indore, and its partners, apply to this court for a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Indore, dated 27th February, 1965, rejecting their application under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act No. XI of 1922), and for a writ of mandamus requiring him to forbear from enforcing the demands raised by him, for the assessment year 1959-60, till the disposal of the appeals filed by the partnership firm for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59, and not to take any coercive measure for the enforcement of the demand.2. The facts leading to this application, shortly stated, are these. The petitioners constituted a Hindu undivided family and were assessed n that status after the assessment year 1956-57. There was a partial partition of the family on 11th September, 1955, and on the next date, the petitioners e...
Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P. Vs. Badrilal Bholoram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969MP9; 1968MPLJ739
Dixit, C.J.1. This consolidated reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax arises out of the Tribunal's common order disposing of the assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The question, which has been referred to this Court for decision, is:'Whether the sum of Rs. 3,440/-, Rs. 6,806/-, Rs. 7,468/- and Rs. 6,457/- each being interest earned by Sureshchandra the minor son of the assessee on the amounts standing to his credit in the firm of M/s Badrilal Bholaram, for the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively are liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under Section 16 (3) (a) (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? '2. The material facts are that the assessee Badrilal, his three major sons and a minor son Sureshchandra constituted a Hindu undivided family till or about 11th September 1955. The undiv...
Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P. Vs. Badrilal Bholaram.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR831(MP)
DIXIT C.J. - The consolidated reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax arises out of the Tribunals common order disposing of the assessees appeals for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The question, which has been referred to this court for decision is :Whether the sum of Rs. 3,440, Rs. 6,806, Rs. 7,468 and Rs. 6,457. each being interest earned by Sureshchandra, the minor son of the assessee, on the amounts standing to his credit in the firm of M/s. Badrilal Bholaram for the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively are liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3) (a) (ii) of the Indian Income-tax, 1922 ?'The material facts are that the assessee, Badrilal, his three major sons and a minor son, Sureshchandra, constituted a Hindu undivided family till or about 11th September, 1955. The undivided family wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »