Madhya Pradesh Court August 1976 Judgments
Raja Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP54
Shiv Dayal, C. J.1. The question referred to this Bench is'Whether non-payment of the costs,(which were directed to be paid by theplaintiff to the defendant when permissionwas granted under Order 23, Rule 1 (2)of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawing from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit,) before filing of afresh suit, renders the suit non-tenable,or whether the non-payment of the costsis a mere irregularity and does not affectthe tenability of the suit irrespective ofthe fact whether the costs were paid before or after the period of limitation hasexpired.'(Parenthesis is mine.)2. The question is a composite one. While dealing with it we would endeavour to analyse and to give our answer with respect to each component.3. M/s. Raja Traders instituted a suit (Civil Suit No. 6 of 1970) on the small cause side in the Court of the District Judge, Jagdalpur. That suit was against the Union of India in respect of a transaction with the South Eastern Railway. The plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalooram Govindram Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP28
Singh, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a sugar factory at Mohidpur Road district Ujjain, known as Seth Govindram Sugar Mills. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of a Notification of the Central Government, dated 12th November 1970, fixing the minimum price of sugarcane for the year 1970-71 at the rate of Rs. 7.77 per quintal for the petitioner's factory. 2. The impugned Notification was issued by the Central Government under Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Clause 3 of the Order in so far as relevant reads as follows:-- '3. Minimum price of sugarcane payable by producer of sugar.-- (1) The Central Government may, after consultation with such authorities, bodies or associations as it may deem fit, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, fix the minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by producers of sugar or their agents for the sugarcane ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP116; 1977MPLJ227
Raina, J. 1. The petitioners, who are advocates practising in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging, inter alia the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Chief Justice'), dated 5-2-1976.2. This petition raises an important question of jurisdiction of the High Court at its principal seat vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the Benches at Indore and Gwalior. The present State of Madhya Pradesh was constituted under Section 9 of the States Reorganization Act, 195,6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from the appointed day, that is, 1-11-1956, comprising of-(a) The territories of the former State of Madhya Pradesh, except the districts of Nagpur, Chanda, Bhandara, Akola Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha and Buldana; (b) the territories of the former State of Madhya Bharat, except Sunel tappa of Bhanpura tahsil of Mandsaur district;...
Tag this Judgment!Dhiraj Bai Vs. Bari Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP31
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. Because of conflicting decisions in Jhabboolal Upadhyaya v. Gulab Nabi Khan, 1966 MPLJ (Note) 69 (by Tare, J., as he then was) and Kasturchahd v. Sirekunwar 1972 MPLJ 903 (by Bishambhar Dayal,' C.J.), this matter has been referred to us by a learned Single Judge in this Miscellaneous Second Appeal, which has arisen from proceedings under Section 10 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). The present appeal is under Section 32 of the Act. 2. The landlord instituted a suit for eviction against the appellant. During the pendency of the suit, on August 29, 1970, the appellant made an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for fixation of standard rent. On January 29, 1973, a decree for eviction was passed against the appellant. However, on June 7, 1973, the Rent Controlling Authority fixed standard rent, aggrieved by which the landlord preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, held that as the civi...
Tag this Judgment!Budhulal Kasturchand Vs. Chhotelal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP1
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. Appellant Budhulal's suit was dismissed because he did not deposit or pay, within the time fixed by the Court, adjournment costs imposed on him on the preceding date of hearing.2. On the date of hearing, on which the trial Court dismissed the suit, the plaintiff had offered the amount of adjournment costs, which he had to pay. But the trial Court found itself powerless to extend time inasmuch as the plaintiff had been, directed on the preceding date to pay adjournment costs 'before the next date of hearing' and that order was peremptory: 'suit shall stand dismissed on non-payment of costs'.3. The plaintiff appealed from the order of dismissal of his suit. The learned District Judge held that the appeal was not maintainable inasmuch as the order of the trial Court was not a decree. The plaintiff then preferred this second appeal. It was heard by a learned single Judge, who found that the law was not certain because the authorities were not uniform or consistent on th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›