Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP35; 1974MPLJ27
Tare, C.J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 680 of 1973 -- (S. Awatarsingh v. The Authorised Officer. Jabalpur, The said writ petition has been filed by Sardar Awatarsingh, who is respondentNo. 5 in Misc. Petition No. 617 of 1973. As the facts in both the cases are common, it is convenient to dispose of both the cases by a common order.2. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the widow and the daughter of one. Harbanslal brother of the fifth respondent, S. Awatarsingh. The petitioners challenge the order of the Authorised Officer, dated. 4-8-1973 (Petitioners' Annexure-C), directing the first petitioner to vacate the premises and allotting the premises to the third respondent, namely. J. C. Johari, Dy. Superintendent of Police.3. The fourth respondent. Sushil kumar is the landlord. His father. Labbooram Sharma had created the late Harbanslal as a tenant many years before and the fifth respondent. S. Awatarsingh, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1974CriLJ258; 1973MPLJ1065
N.C. Dwivedi, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal by grant of special leave challenging the order of acquittal dated 21-9-1.967 under Section 17 read with Section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Markets Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') recorded toy the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial).2. It is not disputed that a Mandi area has been established at Lashkar as per notification No. 145/XIII Indore, dated 9th June 1953 by the Commerce & Food Department for notified agricultural produce including Mirchi. Dhani'a and Haldi. It is also not disputed that the respondent Mohanlal is a wholesale dealer in Dal Bazar. Inder Ganj, Lashkar. carrying on business under the the name and style 'Mohanlal Shree-chand.' It is also not disputed that the respondent sells Kirana goods, Mirchi. Dhania and Haldi. The respondent admittedly did not obtain licence from the Mandi Committee Lashkar. The Mandi Committee Lashkar through its Accountant instituted a complaint against the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP63; 1974MPLJ16
Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of her suit for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts that the plaintiff alleged were that on June 12, 1959 she was going in Bus No. MPJ 1690 -- belonging to the Madhva Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, from Jabalour to Chhindwara. A truck bearing No. MPJ 9310 owned by Bakhatwarsingh, defendant No. 2. was Coming from the opposite direction-There was a head-on collision between the two vehicles at a distance of about seven miles from Jabalpur. As a result of this impact, the plaintiff received severe injuries to her right elbow causing multiple fractures. It was further pleaded that the injuries have resulted in a permanent disability of the right hand. Both the drivers, according to the case of the plaintiff, were driving the respective vehicles in utter disregard of the rules of driving and without any regard to the safety of passengers. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rupe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP10
Tankha, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order (Annexure D) dated 12th July, 1973 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Sagar (respondent No. 1) and also the permit issued to the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the said order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a State Transport Undertaking established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The petitioner is operating its stage carriages on Sagar Jabalpur via Sanodha, Garhakota, Abhana, Jabera and Katangi under Scheme No. 9 approved under the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A portion of this route between Garhakota and Abhana has been allowed to be operated by private operators under the Scheme with a restriction not to pick up and set down passengers between the aforesaid portion.3. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP75; 1974MPLJ126
Raina, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the judgment and decree of the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The subiect matter of the suit is a Cinema House formerly known as 'Gulab Talkies' and now 'Central Talkies' Jabalpur. The said house belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendants-appellants have been in occupation thereof under a registered lease deed dated 26-1-1950 on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- for a period of 9 years commencing from 26-1-1950. According to the plaintiffs the lease expired on 25-1-1959 but as the defendants failed to vacate in spite of notices the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendants and for arrears of rent etc.3. The suit was resisted by the defendants appellants on various grounds. The defendants admitted that according to the terms of the lease it was to expire on the 25th January, 1959 but they pleaded that on 2-1-1959 there was afresh agreement between t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP79; 1974MPLJ35
Tare, C.J. 1. A Single Bench of this Court by order, dated 16-4-1971, has referred the question of Court-fees to a larger Bench in view of the conflict of opinion in some cases which presently we propose to mention. 2. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is directed against an order, dated 24-11-1970, passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Balhar, in Civil Suit No. 21-A of 1968, holding that the question of court-fees is governed by Section 7(v)(c) of the Court-fees Act and, therefore, the trial Judge required the petitioner-plaintiff to pay court fees on fifteen times the mesne profits. The petitioner filed a suit for possession of two fields, namely, khasra Nos. 104/1 and 112, measuring 7.37 acres and 0.53 acres respectively and assessed to land revenue of Rs. 3/- and 0.50 paise respectively as annual land revenue. However, the petitioner claimed to pay court-fees under Section 7(v)(b) of the Court-fees Act on 20 times the assessed land revenue. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP85
Raina, J.1. In Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 7 of 1972 a question arose whether a temporary injunction can be issued to restrain a decree-holder from executing his decree against his judgment-debtor. Shiv Dayal, J. who heard the appeal referred the following points for decision by the Division Bench on account of divergent views having been expressed by this Court in different cases:--(1) Whether in a suit instituted by a judgment-debtor on the ground of fraud or any such other ground, a temporary injunction can be granted restraining the decree-holder from executing his decree against the plaintiff.(2) When a suit is instituted on the ground that the decree is not binding on the plaintiff and that the execution of the decree will be prejudicial to the plaintiff's right, by a person, who was not a party to the suit in which the decree was passed, can a temporary injunction be issued to restrain the decree-holder from executing his decree against his judgment-debtor.2. Shiv Dayal, J....
Tag this Judgment!