Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Dangalia and ors. Vs. Deshraj and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974MP49; 1973MPLJ796
Tare, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 31-12-1965 (Petitioners Annexure-D) passed in Revenue Revision No. 88-IV/65, as also the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, passed in Revenue Appeal No. 261/63-64, dated 24-10-1964 (Petitioners Annexure-B). 2. This case has had a chequered career and the litigation originally started in the year 1954. 3. The petitioner. Dangalia filed an application under Section 91 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. 1950, alleging that he had sublet the lands for three years to the first respondent. Deshraj alias Dost Mohammad and in spite of efflux of time, the first respondent did not surrender back possession, to the said petitioner. Therefore, ejectment of the first respondent was sought. The proceedings for ejectment were dismissed by the Tahsildar. The order of dismissal was confirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Comm...
Dhanna Singh Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP218; 1973MPLJ653
Tare, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by Bishambhar Dayal. C. J. and S. M. N. Raina, J. hasreferred the following question to a larger Bench:'Which is the material date for commencement of limitation under Rule 80 of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1949 (Samvat 20061 in the case of an objector to whom Section 5T (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is not applicable?'2. Rule 80 of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Motor Vehicles Rules. 1949 (Samvat 2006). is as follows:--'Rule 80 (a).-- Appeals against the orders of a Regional Transport Authority.-- The authority to decide an appeal against the orders of a Regional Transport Authority under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Section 64 of the Act shall be the Chairman and two members of the State Transport Authority appointed by the Chairman from a panel, nominated by the State Government of members of that authority, and any...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramchand Kundanlal Saraf
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR474(MP); 1973MPLJ806
Raina, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). 2. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for decision: ' Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, the quantum of penalty would have to be regulated with reference to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) before its amendment on April 1, 1968, and as the minimum penalty under Section 271(1)(c) fell below Rs. 1,000 only the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to proceed with the penalty proceedings ' 3. The material facts leading to this reference as stated by the Tribunal are as follows : The assessee, Ramchand Kundanlal Saraf of Bina, is the karta of a Hindu undivided family and the dispute relates to the period 1961-62 and 1962-63. In the original returns submitted by the assessee, he had shown incom...
Ramdayal Vs. Manaklal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP222; 1973MPLJ650
R.J. Bhave, J.1. The defendant had purchased a house from the plaintiff's father and was put in possession thereof. The plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the sale in favour of the defendant was without legal necessity. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed possession of the house. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the property in question being coparcenary property and there being no legal necessity, the sale was not binding on the plaintiff. A decree for possession of the suit property was. therefore, granted in favour of theplaintiff. The defendant thereupon preferred this appeal. When the case came before a learned Single Judge (Bishambhar Dayal, C. J.) it was urged that the defendant being a bona fide purchaser for value from ostensible owner, the sale should have been upheld and that, in any case, the Courts below should have given a direction to the effect that'the execution of the decree in so far as it directs the purchaser to deliver possession of the prope...
Sudhir Kumar Suri Vs. Principal, Mahakoshal Arts Mahavidyalaya, Jabalp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP278; 1973MPLJ815
Singh, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner calls into question an order dated 25th March 1973 passed by the Principal, Mahakoshal Arts Mahavidyalaya. Jabalpur, rusticating him for a period of two years. 2. The petitioner was a student of M. A. (Final) Philosophy in Mahakoshal Arts Mahavidyalaya, Jabalpur. A complaint was made to the Principal on 21st March, 1973 by one Mrs. Renuka Gupta, a Lecturer in Government Science College, Jabalpur, that the petitioner molested her in the College Library. On this complaint, the Principal on 22nd March, 1973 issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before him and to explain why he should not be rusticated from the college on the ground of misconduct. As the petitioner denied the charge, the Principal constituted a committee for conducting an enquiry into the complaint against the petitioner. The committee consisted of Dr. V. S. Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of economics, Professor S. ...
Pritam Das Vs. Mst. Akbari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP224; 1973MPLJ830
Bhave, J.1. On a difference between Honourable Justice Shiv Dayal and Honourable Justice S.B. Sen, the following question has been referred to me for my decision:--'Whether the agreements (Exs. D-1 and D-2). relied on by the defendants, were executed before the agreement for sale between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 was executed ?'2. To appreciate the circumstances In which the difference between the honourable Judges arose it is necessary to narrate a few facts. The original defendant No. 1 Hidayatullah owned the suit house situate in Lashkar, Gwalior, near the Town Hall. In one portion of the ground-floor the plaintiff has his shop, while the other portion is occupied by the Bata Shoe Company (the third Defendant). Hashmatullah (defendant No. 2) is the son of defendant No. 1 Hidayatullah. Hashmatullah had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to transfer the suit house for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- on 30-11-1958. Under this agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was to ...
Mangilal Ganpat Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1974MP159; 1973MPLJ90
R.J. Bhave, J. 1. A Division Bench consisting of Honourable Justice Oza and Honourable Justice Vyas has referred the following question for our decision, namely-'Whether notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. is necessary for an application for compensation when filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act?'2. The facts of the case are that the appellant's daughter Rampyari Bai, aged about 12 years, was injured on 22nd November, 1966 as a result of a motor accident and subsequently died. The Motor Vehicle No. DD-4033 belonged to the Defence Services of the Government of India. The appellant, therefore, preferred a claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation against the driver of the motor vehicle as also the Union of India on the ground that the vehicle was driven by the driver rashly and negligently causing the accident. Amongst other grounds of defence, a plea was raised on behalf of the Union o...
Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ57; 1973MPLJ692
G.P. Singh, J.1. The judgment in this appeal shall also dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 211 and 215 of 1973 as also Criminal References Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 1973.2. On 6th July 1972 there was an armed robbery in the Gun Carriage Factory Post Office, Jabalpur, at about 5-30 p. m. in which three postal employees, namely, Sitaram Chouksey, V. N. Choudhary and Durga Prasad Mishra, lost their lives. The appellants in these appeals were tried by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 1972 for offences under Sections 302, 449 and 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. By the judgment delivered on 20th February 1973, Pravin Kumar Gupta (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1973) has been convicted under Section 302 for committing murder of V. N. Choudhary and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for committing murder of Sitaram Chouksey and Durga Prasad Mishra. For these offences he has been sentenced to death. He has als...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ratanchand Darbarilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR258(MP); 1973MPLJ996
Sen, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Cases Nos. 587 and 588 of 1971 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ratanchand Darbarilal).2. This is a reference under Section 66(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the revenue, and it pertains to the registration of the firm, M/s. Ratanchand Darbarilal of Satna, under Section 26A of the Act.3. The relevant assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding previous year of which was that ending on 28th August, 1957.4. The facts, shortly stated, are few and simple. A Hindu undivided family consisting of one Murlidhar and his two sons, Ratanchand and Darbarilal, of which Murlidhar was the karta, carried on cloth business at Katni. On 1st March, 1943, there was a partition of the joint Hindu family, as a result of which the two branches of Ratanchand and Darbarilal separated from eich other. On disruption, the joint family business was converted into a partnership business. Dhanyakumar representing the branc...
Nimar Industrial Corporation Private Ltd., Khandwa Vs. Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP281; 1973MPLJ846
Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for specific performance of a contract for sale was dismissed by the District Judge East Nimar, Khandwa.2. The plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The defendant is the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board constituted under the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The facts leading to the suit giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. Jasrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Private Limited owned a power house, which included lands and buildings, in Khandwa town. They had acquired the. said power house from M/s. Abdul Hussain Haji Jiwaji and Co. who originally held the licence for supply of electricity. M/s. Jasrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Private Ltd. surrendered their licence and their licence was revoked with their consent in 1954. After the revocation of the licence, the entire Khandwa power house with all its lands and buildings was purchased by the Madhya Pradush Electricity Board (hereina...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »