Madhya Pradesh Court March 1973 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.
The Collector, Jabalpur and anr. Vs. Kamal Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP288; 1973MPLJ779
Tankha, J. 1. This is a first appeal filed by the Collector, Jabalpur, and the State of Madhya Pradesh against the award, dated 17-8-1971, passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Land Acquisition Case No. 7 of 1970 on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Military Estate Officer, Madhya Pradesh Circle, Jabalpur, applied for acquisition of 6.43 acres of private land located in village Richhai, settlement No. 402, tahsil and district Jabalpur, vide his letter dated 6-6-1967 for the purpose of construction of Railway Siding for the new Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, of the Defence Department of Union of India. It consisted of two parts: (i) 6.36 acres of open area and (ii) 0.07 acre of covered area containing certain structures. In the present case we are concerned with regard to the acquisition of 6.36 acres of open land alone. The notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Ac...
Ramkumar Mishra Vs. Kesharimal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1975MP26; 1974MPLJ579
ORDERSurajbhan, J. 1. The respondent has filed an application (I. A. No. 32 of 1973) that so far as the corrupt practice alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition, is concerned, there is no affidavit to this effect and, therefore, the petition be dismissed under Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner, in reply, has stated that the affidavit has already been filed with the petition but so far as paragraph 5 of the petition is concerned, the defect in the affidavit crept in due to a typing mistake and it was not detected before filing the petition. 3. I heard both the learned counselfor the parties. Shri Bajpai, learned counselfor the respondent, has invited my attentionto paragraphs 11 and 15 of the judgmentof the Division Bench of this Court, reported in Dwarkaprasad v. Kamalnarain, 1964MPLJ 682 at pp. 691, 696 and 697 =(AIR 1964 Madh Pra 273 at pp. 279, 283).He also stressed that the decision of theSupreme Court ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Murarilal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1559; 1973MPLJ707
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the cross appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1971, (Murarilal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), filed by the present respondents against their conviction under Section 411, I. P. C, and the consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years to each of them. The present appeal by the State is against the acquittal of both these persons for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 201 and 394, IPC2. The deceased Mst. Laltibai, mother of P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad and mother-in-law of P. W. 11 Sudamabai, lived in village Hirdayanagar, district Mandla, with the aforesaid witnesses. The village is at a distance of about nine kilometers from Mandla. Nearabout mid-day on 28-1-1971, the deceas-sed, an old woman aged about 65 years, whose mobility had been considerably impaired on account of a paralytic attack, left her house and soon thereafter was seen standing near the house of accused Mu...
Niranjan Singh Vs. the Board of Revenue, M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1973
Reported in: AIR1975MP27; 1974MPLJ526
Tare, C. J. 1. This is a petition underArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, directed against the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 26-7-1972 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/10), holding that the petitioner could not be given the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. The question whether the lands held by the petitioner exceeded the ceiling limit as per the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, (No. 20 of 1960), came up for consideration before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadarwara acting as Competent Authority. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order, dated 26-5-1965 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/1). It is not necessary to know the details of the said order as we are not concerned with the merits of the case, but only with the question of limitation. 3. Against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner purported to file an appeal before the Collector, who, vide, order dated 15-9-65 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/3), dism...
Rajaram Vishwakarma Vs. Deepabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974MP52; 1973MPLJ626
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the husband, whose marriage with the respondent (has been held to be null and void under Section 11 of the Act, on the ground that he had a wife living on the date of the marriage. A decree of nullity has also been passed under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that the respondent's consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of that section. 2. Smt. Deepabai (respondent) was married to Rajaram (appellant) on November 25, 1964, in the Hindu sacramental form of marriage. On September 2, 1965, she made an application under Section 11 of the Act for a declaration that the marriage was nullity inasmuch as Rajaram had been married to one Kewalibai, daughter of Kashinath Loharof Bai-Ka-bagicha, about 10 years earlier. It was also alleged that the fact of the previous marriage was deliberately suppres...
Agarwal Medical and General Stores Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP255; 1973MPLJ697
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order to quash cancellation of the petitioner's four licences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and for restoration of the petitioner's stock seized by the Collector.2. The petitioner held four licences in Forms 21, 21-B, 20 and 20-B (that is, to sell, stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute by retail drugs specified in Schedules C and C (1), and also drugs other than those specified in Schedules C and C (1) respectively) under Rules 61 (1) and 61 (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, (hereinafter called the Rules) framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (hereinafter called the Act). These licences were subject to the conditions enumerated in them.3. Section 18 of the Act prohibits sale, etc., of any drug or cosmetic, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence issued for such purpose by the licensing authority. Under Rule 59 of the said Rules, the Collector is th...
Balkishan Muchhal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR243(MP); 1973MPLJ484
Singh, J.1. This judgment will govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 181 of 1965 and Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 468 of 1971. These are two references under Section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, relating to the assessment of estate duty on the estate of one Smt. Ayodhyabai Muchhal who died on September 10, 1957.2. The deceased was a partner in the firm of M/s. Laxmichand Muchhal holding one-fifth share in the firm. In the books of the firm a sum of Rs. 36,501 was debited in the account, of the deceased and credited in the account of a trust known as 'Muchhal Trust' on November 2, 1952. The accountable person claimed that this amount represented a gift for public charitable purposes and as it was made beyond six months prior to the date of death, it could not be included in the estate of the deceased under Section 9 of the Act. The Assistant Controller held that the gift was not complete and he accordingly added the amount in computing the value of the deceased's inter...
Kashiram Baldeosingh Khangar and ors. Vs. the District Magistrate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ254; 1973MPLJ953
ORDERM.L. Malik, J.1. The District Magistrate, Sagar. has, by his order dated the 7th March, 1973, passed under Section 3 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1965, directed the six persons forming a gang to disperse themselves outside the district of Sagar and the contiguous districts of Chhatarpur. Damoh. Narsimhapur, Raisen, Vidisha. Guna and Tikam-garh. The period of operation of the order is one year commencing from the 7th March. 1973 and expiring on the 6th March, 1974. Two of them being in Jail, the order directed that they should remove themselves out of the eight districts soon after their release from jail. Three of these six externees have filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 283 of 1973. two of them have filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 246 of 1973 and one of them has filed the Miscellaneous Petition No. 291 of 1973. The order delivered in Miscellaneous Petition No. 283 of 1973 shall govern the disposal of the other two petitions also.2. None of the six e...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›