Madhya Pradesh Court February 1978 Judgments
Abdul HussaIn H.M. Hasanbhai Vs. the Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP157; 1978MPLJ43
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Indore on 20-10-1975 in Misc. Judl. Case No. 23/75; wherein the learned Judge allowed an application submitted by the non-applicants and set aside an ex parte decree.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against the non-applicants for recovery of an amount of Rs. 26,000/-. A summons of this suit was served on the defend ant-non-applicants on 17-3-1975; but still on 25-3-75 nobody appeared for the non-applicants. Thereupon on 22-4-75 an ex parte decree was passed. Thereafter on 5-8-75 an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C. P. C. for setting aside ex parte decree was filed in the court below by the non-applicants alleging that the summons in the suit was not properly served on defendant No. 1. They also contended that they learnt about passing of the decree on 29-7-75, therefore they sought setting aside of the decree passed against t...
Tag this Judgment!Rewaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ858
ORDERN.C. Dwivedi, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant Rewaram has challenged his conviction Under Section 302 of the Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing the murder of this wife Gyanwatibai between intervening night of 13th end 14th of May 1972.2. The prosecution case is this: The deceased Gyanwatibai resided with her four children with the appellant in the house of Bhurkan Bai (P.W. 1) for the last five years. At about midnight, Bhurkan Bai (P.W. 1), Nathulal (P.W. 3) and Dhansingh (P.W. 4) heard cries of Gyan- watibai and her children. Hence, they went to the house of the appellant and found the outer door locked from inside. Despite calls to open the door, the door was not opened and, therefore, the door was forcibly opened. It was found that Gyanawatibai was lying close to her bed on the ground in a pool of blood and the appellant was standing close to her. He had a blue handled open knife (Art. C-l) in his hand. On being reprimanded by...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal and ors. Vs. Registered Firm Mittilal-radheylal Rastogi and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP160
ORDERH.G. Mishra, J.1. This is a revision preferred by the defendant-applicants against order dated 10-12-1977 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior, passed in Small Cause Suit No. 70/ 1976, whereby it has been held that the Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Janjati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam (12 of 1967) is not applicable, because the loan sought to be recovered on the basis of a bond dated 5-5-1974 was not subsisting on the appointed date.2. Learned counsel for the applicants Shri B. S. Saxena has raised the following contentions:--(i) That although the debt sought to be recovered is alleged to have been advanced on the basis of a bond dated 5-5-1974, yet by virtue of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 108 of 1976) assented to by the President on 18th Sept. 1976 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part II, Section 1 dated 20-9-1976, the appointed date will be deemed to be the date of publication of the aforesaid Amendment A...
Tag this Judgment!Premibai Vs. Parwatibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP163
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Indore dated 7-4-1976.2. It appears that the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition and separate possession claiming one-fourth share in the property. According to the plaintiff in para. 13 of the plaint she valued the claim at Rs. 18,500/-.3. In the written statement plea was raised that the valuation of the property is shown less but it was also contended that the plaintiff will not be entitled to one fourth share.4. Issues were framed on the question of valuation and jurisdiction: but the plaintiff-petitioner submitted an application for amendment of the plaint and by this amendment in para. 13 the plaintiff wanted to add the valuation of the property as a whole but wanted to amend it by saying that she claimed only one-eighth share. The learned Court below refused to consider the amendment application before the decision on the prel...
Tag this Judgment!Thakurlal Shivprakash Poddar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR190(MP)
Kondaiah, J.1. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has submitted a statementof case under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, payment of Rs. 30,000 to M/s. Pitty Brothers, Bombay, is a speculative loss governed by Expln. 2 to Section 24 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, corresponding to Section 43(5) of the 1961 Act or is a normal trading loss ?'2. In order to understand the scope of the question it is necessary to refer briefly to the material facts either admitted or found by the Tribunal that gave rise to the question. For the assessment year 1962-63, the corresponding accounting year ending with November 8, 1961, M/s. Thakurlal Shivprakash Poddar of Mehnagar, hereinafter called the assessee, a registered firm, deriving income from exploiting certain mines in the district of Jhabua of Madhya Pradesh...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mankunwar Bai and ors. Vs. Sunderlal Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP165
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. One of us (Bajpai, J.) had referred the following question for being decided by a larger Bench:--'Whether in compliance with the requirement of Sub-section (1) of Section 13, is it necessary for the defendant-tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit in Court the amount of arrears of rent, the recovery of which has become barred by limitation and which the landlord-plaintiff on his part cannot recover by process in the Court? 'A bench of three Judges heard the reference and by unanimous opinion dated Nov. 19, 1977 (reported in AIR 1978 Madh Pra 54 (FB)) answered the question in the negative. It was held:--'The tenant is not obliged to deposit time-barred rent under the first part of Section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.'Thereafter, when this Second Appeal was placed before the Single Bench, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir, Civil Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhagwatibai Kamalsingh Gautam Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1215
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. This petition has been submitted by the wife of a prisoner who, according to this petition, is an under-trial prisoner detained in Thane Central Prison (Maharashtra State).2. This petition has been submitted under peculiar circumstances. It appears that one Kamalsingh s/o Ramsingh (for whom this petition is submitted) and two other persons, namely Shivgovind s/o Hargoyind and Punamchand s/o Bhuralal Verma, were convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment each under Section 366, I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge Indore. Shivgovind and Punam-chand were also convicted for offences under Section 354, I.P.C. and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment each. Both the sentences were to run concurrently,3. These three persons preferred an appeal to this Court which was Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 1969 and was heard by me and disposed of on 25-1-1971. In this judgment, after notice for enhancement, the appeal filed by the appellants against their co...
Tag this Judgment!Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Chotelal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP250; 1978MPLJ447
ORDERH.G. Mishra, J. 1. This is a revision petition directed against order passed by the Third Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 108-A/1977 dated 23-9-1977, whereby the defendant-applicant herein has been ordered to deposit rent under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (3) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The facts essential for appreciating the controversy in the revision art that the defendant-applicant was inducted as a tenant by Harishchand, father of the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 in the suit-premises. Harishchand died on. 29-11-72. In the lifetime of Harishchand a suit for partition (C. S. No, 6-A/1968) was instituted and the same was pending at the time of death of Harishchand in the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior. In this suit a compromise was effected between the parties on 16-7-1975, whereby, inter alia, the suit-property was allotted to the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1, Thereafter, a...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhmichand Kasliwal Vs. Gopaldas Nikhara
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP171; 1978MPLJ520
ORDERH.G. Mishra, J.1. This is a revision directed against an order dated 26-7-77 whereby an amendment of the plaintiff's plaint based on subsequent event has been rejected by the trial court.2. The plaintiff-applicant 'herein had filed a suit for ejectment from the suit shop on the grounds under Sections12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was alleged in the plaint that at the time of the Institution of the suit two sub-tenants namely, Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel and Rameshwar Dayal were occupying the suit premises but later on the said subtenants had vacated and other subtenants, namely, Dhan Kumar and the Bombay Textile Printers and Venus Advertisers (a partnership firm) were inducted, respectively w.e.f 15-6-76 and 31-7-76 in the suit premises.3. The suit was instituted on 11-9-75, Thus the amendment sought by the plaintiff by his application dated 9-5-77 is based on subsequent event.4. This application was opposed by the defendant and has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Premchand JaIn and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP173; 1977MPLJ94
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a joint petition by three petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Divisional Forest Officer, Gwalior, directing them not to enforce the order dated 20th Oct. 1977 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer.2. The petitioners who are three different parties entered into separate contracts for sale of fuel In the city of Gwalior according to the terms and conditions of the agreements entered into by them with the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners' case is that under the terms of the aforesaid agreements they were to purchase fuel from the Government of M, P., and sell it to the consumers at the rate of Rs. 16/- per quintal of the unsplit fuel and Rs. 18/-per quintal of the split fuel. The agreements were for different periods but all of them are to expire by the end of April 1978. However, the Divisional Forest Officer, Gwalior issued an order to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›