Madhya Pradesh Court August 1972 Judgments
Narbada Prasad Vs. Awadesh Narain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP179; 1973MPLJ534
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This revision is against an order dismissing the defendant's application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. in the trial Court, December 17, 1970, was fixed for evidence of the parties. The plaintiff produced his evidence and closed it. The defendant did not produced any on that date, but sought an adjournment, which was opposed by the plaintiff. It was allowed on the condition that the defendant would pay Rs. 25/- as costs. On February 4, 1971, which was fixed for the defendant's evidence, the plaintiff appeared but the defendant did not appear. His counsel reported no instructions. The trial Court then proceeded under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil P. C., and pronounced the judgment then and there. The claim of the plaintiff was decreed.2. The defendant made an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C., for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that owing to the illness of his brother, he became late in starting from his village and missed the train which w...
Tag this Judgment!Saraf and Swarnkar Samiti, Morar and ors. Vs. Munnal Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP216; 1973MPLJ614
Raina, J.1. The non-petitioner No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a suit against the petitioners 1 to 4 for permanent injunction and damages.2. Petitioner No. 1 is Saraf and Swarankar Samiti, Morar, which is an unregistered body while petitioners 2 to 4 are its office-bearers. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a member of Saraf and Swarankar Samiti, Morar. The plaintiff (non-petitioner No. 1) is working as Saraf at Morar and carries on business of manufacture and sale of silver ornaments and other articles. He obtains goods on loan from other gold-smiths for his business and sells them to his customers. According to the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 (petitioners 2 to 4) are illegally bringing pressure on other members of Swarnkar Samiti so as to compel the plaintiff to stop his business and petitioners 1 to 4 (defendants 1 to 4) have passed a resolution against the plaintiff to the effect that all the members of the Samiti shall not transact business with the plaintiff. This has affecte...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mulamchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP293; 1973MPLJ832
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. In this revision, the defendant-State has challenged the decision of thetrial Court on the question of res judicata.2. On October 6, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, sold by public auction to the plaintiff the right to propagate and collect lac in some of the forests of Balaghat district. The plaintiff purchased the said right in different Patwari circles. The total amount payable by the plaintiff was Rs. 69,500/-. The plaintiff merely paid Rs. 500/- on October 6, 1951, and another sum of Rs. 5000/- on October 6, 1951 and another sum of Rs. 5000/- on November 29, 1951. For the balance of Rs. 59,000/- the Tahsildar Balaghat, started recovery proceedings. In the course of those proceedings, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, the balance outstanding against the plaintiff was Rs. 58,000/-.3. The plaintiff challenged those recovery proceedings by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by a learned Judge sittin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hastimal Ratanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1972
Reported in: 1972MPLJ1075; [1973]30STC484(MP)
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act. The dealer purchases white cotton yarn and he dyes it into different colours and then sells the coloured yarn. Under Section 2(r) of the Act the words 'taxable turnover' have been defined and under Section 6 of the Act sales tax is payable on the taxable turnover of a dealer. The relevant part of Section 2(r) is as follows :'taxable turnover' in relation to any period means that part of a dealer's turnover for such period which remains after deducting therefrom-(i) * * *(ii) sale price of goods other than those mentioned in Sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of this clause, which have been purchased otherwise than in the course of inter-State trade or commerce from a registered dealer...(i) * * *Therefore, on the sale price of yarn which this dealer purchases from a registered dealer and then sells the same, sales tax is not payable under Section 6. Under Section 7 of the Act purchase tax is payable ...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Wvg.) Company Limited Vs. the Assist ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC9(MP)
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This order will govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 30 of 1970, 63 of 1972 and 64 of 1972 also.2. All these petitions have been filed by the same company in respect of different periods of assessment challenging the authority of the assessing officer to enquire into the transactions which were claimed by the assessee as outside sales for the purpose of determining whether those transactions were in fact inter-State sales and taxable to sales tax under Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. There is no dispute that if the transactions amount to inter-State sales, they would be taxable under that section.3. In these petitions, a very large number of questions have been raised by the petitioners. But before us only one question relating to the vires of Section 8(2)(b) and Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act has been argued. No other point has been pressed. The details of facts relating to the transactions have also been incorporated ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1670; 1973MPLJ376
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. This is a revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Shri Ramlal Sharma challenging the legality and propriety of an order purported to have been made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hoshangabad. under Section 144 of the Code.2. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the State that the revision should not be entertained by the High Court directly in view of the provisions of Rule 15. Chapter IV of the High Court Rules more so. because the petitioner has already filed a similar revision before the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, under Section 438, of the Code. The objection is well founded and must be sustained. Rule 15 reads as follows:No petition for revision of an original order of a Magistrate shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a copy of the order of the District Magistrate or Sessions Judge concerned refusing to refer the case to the High Court.The language of the rule is clear and explicit. It will be noticed that...
Tag this Judgment!Dindayal Pachuri Vs. Vimalchand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP299; 1973MPLJ465
G.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a tenant's appeal against a decree for eviction passed against him.2. The facts are that the plaintiff Vimalchand is the landlord of the suit accommodation which is a shop. Dindayal is his tenant and Punitram is a sub-tenant of the tenant. Dindayal carries on business of awatch repairer in a part of the shop and has sub-let the other part to Punitram whocarries on laundry business. The original landlord of the shop was one Gulraj, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff Vimalchand. The plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this appeal against Dindayal and Punitram for eviction on two grounds: First, that the tenant has unlawfully sub-let a part of the accommodation to Punitram; and secondly, that the accommodation is needed by the plaintiff for opening a cloth shop.The defence of the tenant Dindayal was that the shop was sub-let to Punitram with the consent of the original landlord Gulraj and that the sub-letting was not unlawful. It was also ple...
Tag this Judgment!The Pench Valley Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: 1973MPLJ32; [1973]31STC64(MP)
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J.1. This order will also govern Miscellaneous Petitions No. 183 of 1967 (The Pench Valley Coal Co. Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 184 of 1967 (The Pench Valley Coal Co. Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 185 of 1967 (The Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 186 of 1967 (The Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 187 of 1967 (The Pench Valley Coal Co. Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 188 of 1967 (The Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 189 of 1967 (The Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 262 of 1967 (The Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 263 of 1967 (The Pench Valley Coal Co. Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.), No. 387 of 1967 (The Pench Valley Coal Co. Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.) and No. 388 of 1967 (The Pench Valley Coal Co. Ltd. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.).2. All these petitions are directed a...
Tag this Judgment!Moolchand Vs. Sheodutt Paliwal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973MP301; 1972MPLJ142
G.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a tenant's appeal against whom a suit for eviction has been decreed on the ground mentioned in Section 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the finding that the house in possession of the tenant is needed by the plaintiff-landlord for using it as a lawyer's office. The plaintiff is an Advocate of two or three years standing and, according to the plaint allegations, he has no other suitable accommodation for his office.2. The main dispute between the parties is, whether the house was let to the defendant for residential purposes or whether it was let for non-residential purposes. If it is held that the house was let for residential purposes, the plaintiff cannot succeed, as for getting a decree under Section 12 (1) (f) he has to establish that the accommodation was let for non-residential purposes. The trial Court committed the mistake of not framing a direct issue on this point, but I find that the parties were alive to the poin...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Abdul Rahman and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ290
A.P. Sen, J.1. The question for this Division Bench is-Whether a Food Inspector functioning as such under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is a police officer or not within the meaning of the expression 'police officer' appearing in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act2. The facts are shortly as follows. The two accused, Bashir Khan and Rashid Khan, are being tried on a complaint by the Food Inspector under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 : read with Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. They are charged with having sold an admixture of cow's and buffalo's milk, which is an offence under Section 16 of the Act. One piece of evidence against them was an alleged statement by one of the accused to the Food Inspector to the effect that the milk in question was neither pure Cow's milk nor buffalo's milk but was a mixture of both. On objection by the accused the learned trying Magistrate sustained their objection that the confessional st...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›