Madhya Pradesh Court February 1972 Judgments
Chandel Ranjit Kunwar Vs. Hiralal Sundersingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1972MP133; 1972MPLJ582
Naik, J.1. A second appeal (Second Appeal No. 194 of 1966) filed by the plaintiff-applicant in forma pauperis was dismissed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 26-4-1971 with leave to the appellant to file a Letters Patent Appeal.2. The plaintiff-applicant now prays for leave to file the Letters Patent Appeal in forma pauperis.3. It cannot be disputed that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to Letters Patent Appeals. In Sabitri Thakurain v. Savi, 48 Ind App 76 = (AIR 1921 PC 80) the plaintiff-appellant had appealed to the High Court at Calcutta under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the rejection by the Court in its original civil jurisdiction of a petition under the Probate and Administration Act. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent petitioned the High Court for an order that the appellant should give security for costs under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was ordered that the appellant should, within two months, furnish secur...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Soni Vs. Assistant Block Development Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP124; 1972MPLJ357
S.B. Sen, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It pertains to the election of a Gram Panchayat. The petitioner came with the allegation that he is a resident of village Bhagora, tahsil and block Mhow . He resides with his family in house No. 126 of village Bhagora. He is a voter at No. 56 of the voters' list of ward No. 4 of Gram Sabha Bhagora since 1951. He was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat village Bhagora since 1962 and was elected Panch since 1956.2. Elections to the various Panchayats are being held and voters' list of that village was revised in February, 1970 under Rule 10 of the M. P. Gram Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, The list was published on 24-3-70 under Rule 6. The last date for filing the nomination papers to the office of the Gram Panchayat Bhagora was fixed as 13-4-70 UP to 3 p.m. The petitioner filed his nomination form for the office of Panch,3. We may mention here that the petitioner has not mentioned at what time he h...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekhar Jaikishan Bajpai Vs. Niyamatram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1972MP122; 1972MPLJ770
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The non-applicant filed a suit against the applicant for eviction on arrears of rent. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, and the decree was maintained in first as well as in second appeal. As eviction was sought under Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that the accommodation was required for the purposes of rebuilding the house, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Section 18, reads as under:--'18. Recovery of possession for repairs and re-building and re-entry.- (1) In making any order on the grounds specified in Clause (g) or Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12, the court shall ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the accommodation or part thereof from which he ...
Tag this Judgment!Akhtar Khan Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Jabalpur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1972MP154
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a writ petition by a forest contractor who had taken a forest coupe in auction on 11th August 1970. He had to pay the consideration of Rs. 9,000/- in four instalments of Rs. 2,250/- each. The first instalment was paid and the second Instalment was due on 1st December 1970. The Divisional Forest Officer inspected the coupe on 23rd November 1970 and found that the petitioner had extracted wood of the value much more than what he had deposited by way of instalment. Consequently, a notice was served on him on 30th November 1970 that further extraction of wood from the forest was stopped under Rule 8 of the Forest Contract Rules until the deficiency was deposited. On the very next date, the second instalment became due and the petitioner not having paid that amount, a further notice was served on him that the instalment had become due. Further instalments not having been paid, the agreement was terminated under Rule 29 (2) of the Forest Contract Rules. Again...
Tag this Judgment!Siyaram Singhal and ors. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Government and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ411MP; 1972MPLJ722
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J.1. The petitioners are lecturers in the Education Department of the State Government and were confirmed in the post with effect from 18-9-69 vide order dated 24-11-69 (Annexure 1). Their pay scale is Rs. 250 450. Certain non-government educational institutions were taken over by the Government. Originally the Government issued instructions, dated 28th June, 1960, vide Annexure 2, whereby the seniority of the persons absorbed in Government service was to be reckoned on the basis of the instructions contained in the General Administration Department memo, dated 29th December, 1953. According to the said instructions, their seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the regular Government servants was to be determined according to a formula given therein. These instructions were subsequently revised by the Government in the year 1967, vide Government instructions dated 21-12-67 (Annexure 3). According to these instructions the seniority of an absorbed employee in the post/c...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Sharma Vs. the Prescribed Authority (Transport Commissioner, G ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1972MP134; 1972MPLJ818
Raina, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution.2-3. The petitioner is a bus operator. His bus No. MPH 7091 was duly registered and he had paid road tax upto 31-12-1971 as required by the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 vide Annexure A. On 16-9-1971, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Registering Authority (Regional Transport Officer, Gwalior) --non-petitioner No. 2, calling upon him to show cause why action under Section 33 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) should not be taken against him for the following offences:--(1) On 24-1-1971, the bus was found over-loaded by 11 passengers; (2) On 26-5-1971, the bus was found carrying 6 passengers without tickets; (3) On 9-8-1971, the bus was found plying on nationalised route without permit on hire vide Annexure B. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 25-9-1971 vide Annexure C. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 2 issued a letter dated 7-10-1971 c...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1972
Reported in: 1972MPLJ576; [1972]29STC639(MP)
ORDERA.P. Sen, J. 1. This is a petition by M/s. Birla Jute . challenging the order of assessment of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Satna, dated 23rd December, 1970, including the amounts of railway freight in their taxable turnover for purposes of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the assessment year 1965-66.2. The petitioner owns the Satna Cement Works at Satna, which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement. Cement is a controlled commodity. Under the Cement Control Order, 1961, made by the Central Government for purposes of securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair price of cement throughout the country, in exercise of their powers under Section 18C of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the entire quantity of cement produced by the petitioner has to be sold to the State Trading Corporation at the price fixed under clause 6(1 )(a). That price is ex works price. The petitioner then acts as an agent of the State Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Saday Bhattacharya Vs. Manager, Cycle Industries, M.P. Laghu Ud ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ373MP; 1972MPLJ541
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was employed as a cycle inspector (cycle parts) by the Director of Industries (Administration) M.P., vide order dated 22-3-58 (Annexure A) in the grade of 85-130. The cycle industry in which he was employed was at that time a Government concern under the Industries Department. Subsequently, the industry was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd., M.P. on 24-1-64, vide Annexure El. The non-petitioner No. 1 is the manager of the said Nigam (Corporation) while non-petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director thereof. The petitioner was promoted to the post of senior inspector on a revised pay scale of Rs. 125-250 on 28-6-68. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 205 plus Rs. 50 as D.A., when he was retrenched by non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, vide order dated 28-6-68 by declaring him surplus. The petitioner was offered retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disp...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mahadeo
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1097; 1972MPLJ447
T.P. Naik, J.1. On being found guilty under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the learned Judge gave him the benefit of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him. The learned Counsel for the State contends that Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code could have no application to offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. We do not agree. Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code occurs in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code, the word 'offence' in that Chapter includes an offence under any Special Act such as the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. It is unfortunate that in M. P. State Govt. v. Amritlal 1953 Nag LJ 357 : AIR 1953 Nag 141 and Emperor v. John Scott (1905) 1 Nag LJ 139. on which reliance is placed, the provisions of Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code were not brought to the notice of the Court.2. It was next contended that Section 14 ...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ369MP; 1972MPLJ435
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was appointed as overseer in the Irrigation Department by the Chief Engineer of the said department (non-petitioner No. 2) on 14th September, 1959 and he continued to work on the said post till 21-2-1966, on which date he was relieved from the said post at his own request in pursuance of a resignation tendered by him on 16-1-1966. The case of the petitioner is that there was no lawful termination of his service as the resignation was not accepted by the competent authority. In fact, a departmental inquiry was held against him on certain charges and the inquiry continued till July, 1970. The inquiry ultimately terminated in his favour. On 30-12-69, the petitioner submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation and for being permitted to resume his duties as an overseer. In reply he was informed that he could not be permitted to resume his service as he had tendered his resignat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »