Madhya Pradesh Court March 1976 Judgments
Son Singh Vs. Board of Revenue of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976MP186
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. The grievance in this petition is two-fold. Firstly, that the Board of Revenue, after having held that a revision lay before the Commissioner, should have sent back the case to the Commissioner; instead, the Board decided the matter against the petitioner on merits; and, secondly, under Section 35 of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, the allotment order was not legal. Respondent No. 4, the allottee is not an 'agricultural labour' within the definition contained in the Act. It is also contended that the procedure laid down in Rule 8 (ii) and Rule 8 (iii) of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, was not complied with.2. Shri Rai, learned counsel for the allottee, raises a preliminary objection that this petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches. The Board of Revenue decided the revision before it on November 11, 1970. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order of the Board of Revenue on March 2, 1971. Shri Kotecha tells us th...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand JaIn Vs. Firm Babulal Rajendra Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1976MP187
Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall also dispose of First Appeal No. 153 of 1971. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that the plaintiff Parmanand Jain filed a suit on 9th October, 1968 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,041 against the defendants Choudhary Babulal and his son Rajendra Kumar. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants borrowed from him on 24th November 1967 a sum of Rs. 9,081 at 12 per cent interest. It was further alleged that the defendant Babulal executed a hand-note on the same date in the plaintiff's favour. The plaintiff in addition to the principal amount of Rs. 9,081 claimed interest amounting to Rs. 954 upto the date of the suit at 12 per cent and Rs. 6 as notice charges. The decree against Rajendra Kumar was claimed on the basis that the defendants carried on a joint business of Adhat in the name of Babulal Rajendra Kumar and the loan was taken for this business. The defendant Rajendra Kumar pleaded that he had nothing to do with the suit transactions and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramswarup Gupta Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Federa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1976MP152; (1977)ILLJ271MP
Bajpai, J.1. This reference stems from a humdrum case of an employee of a Co-operative Marketing Society, whose services have been brought to an end by accepting his resignation and thereafter the employee had taken practically all possible alternative stands by saying that firstly he had not at all submitted anyresignation; or if there is any, the same must be forged or even if it bears his signature, he had simply written the same and kept it and never intended to submit it to the authority for acceptance. According to him, it was nothing but a surprise as to how the same could reach the authorities for further action. However, we are at present not concerned with the facts of the case inasmuch as only the following three questions of law have been referred : for being answered by us and we have to confine ourselves to the same :(i) Whether Co-operative Society, registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act is a statutory body ? (ii) Whether a writ of mandamus, direction or o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›