Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP115; 1960CriLJ484
..... evidence and the administration of the oath, then it is a court.'these observations were approved in haricharan v. kaushicharan, air 1940 cal 286 as also in deputy commissioner, goalpara v. upendra saran, air 1950 assam 25. tho capacity to deliver a definitive judgment not arbitrarily but according to certain rules and procedure which ensure ..... of a court.in brajnandan sinha v. jyoti narain, (s) air 1956 sc 66 it was observed by their lordships of the supreme ..... that the person called upon to decide them acts with fairness and impartiality, were held in satdeo v. baba raghavdas, air 1953 all. 419 as the least attributes .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP152
..... realize the dues under forest contracts as arrears of land revenue is in question.2. as a result of the coming into force of the madhya pradesh abolition of proprietary rights (estates, mahals, alienated lands) act 1950 (no. 1of 1951), the village forests vested in the state with effect from 31 march 1951. the right to propagate and ..... these cases, therefore, was done by a duly authorized officer. accordingly, the decision of their lordships of the supreme court in chaturbhuj vithaldas v. moreshwar parashram, air 1954 sc 236 is clearly attracted.12. in the cited case, the contract was entered into by the chairman of the board of administration, whose authority in that ..... ratification, especially if that was for the benefit of government.'we may also refer to the following observation in state of assam v. keshab prasad singh, air 1953 sc 309 in the context of auction sale and acceptance of a bid:'according to all notions of contracts current in civilized countries that would have constituted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP108
..... date but on some future date. as observed by the privy council in rameshwar singh v. homeshwar singh, air 1921 pc 31, when article 182 (1), limitation act 'prescribes three years from the date of a decree or order within which it must be enforced, the ..... district judge held that the decree holders were under no circumstances entitled to the deduction of any time under section 5 limitation act which did not apply to execution proceedings. he accordingly held the application for execution barred by time. the decree-holders have now ..... within three years of the date when the decree had been drawn up.3. there is no force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants. it is well settled that the expression 'date of the ..... ilr 25 cal 109; umda v. rupchand. air 1927 nag i; sri ramachandra v. bhalu, air 1950 orissa 125; raijnath prasad v. nursinghdas. air 1958 cal 1, sri ram v. jagan nath, (s) air 1957 punj 65 and akin singh v. ramprit, air 1959 pat 109.i am aware of some .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP1
..... of the decree no sanction of any authority for the sale of the land was required under the dewas state (senior) land revenue act, after the coming into force of the madhya bharat land revenue and tenancy act 1950 the holding could not be sold without the previous sanction of the suba and that no such previous sanction had been obtained. he ..... of the competent authority, if the judgment-debtor failed to obtain it.7. mr. rege, learned counsel for the respondents, relied on mahomed wazir v. jahangiri mal, air 1949 lah 72, in support of his contention that a sale effected in consequence of a decree for specific performance is not a voluntary sale. the lahore case does not ..... performance.6. i must notice two decisions which were cited at the bar. learned counsel for the appellant referred me to hakim enayat ullah v. khalil ullah khan, air 1938 all 432, where it was held that a decree for specific performance only declares the right of the decree-holder to have a transfer of the property covered .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP130
..... state of madhya pradesh as it existed before the reorganization of states on 1-11-1956, are enforceable in that territory of the new madhya pradesh which upto 31-10-1950 was called the part b state of madhya bharat.2. the material facts are these. in execution of a decree against kailash chandm (judgment-debtor), akabai (decree-holder) ..... . it regulates procedure in all civil courts. it will be governed by section 119 and not by section 54 of the act.15. it must, therefore, be held that the code of civil procedure as was in force in the territories of the former madhya bharat state on 31-10-1956continues to operate in those areas of the new state ..... order 21, rule 58(2). he relies on decisions reported in m. varadaiah chetti v. narasimhalu, chetty, air 1932 mad 41; sasthi charan biswas v. gopal chandra saha, air 1937 cal 390; commr. of income tax v. poona electric supply co. ltd., air 1947 bom 263 and those reported in shrichand v. santosh kumar, mblj 1953 hcr 493 and shrikisan shiv pratap .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP187
..... human conduct a person is presumed not to give up his possible advantageous position unless he is compelled either by law or force of circumstances to do so. there is no specific provision in the civil procedure code which compels a decree-holder to ask for ..... elapsed since the passing of the decree no fresh order for execution could nave been passed. the executing court held on 24-1950 that since the execution of decree had been stayed by lawful order the petition, for execution was not barred under section 48 ..... representatives and for doing so certain further details are to be provided for will not have the effect of treating such further acts of decree-holder in aid of his execution as tantamount to fresh application for execution.13. the appeal is therefore allowed ..... not barred by twelve year's rule in section 48 c. p. c. the decision reported in shrikisandas v. sitaram, air 1952 nag 123, sought to be relied upon on behalf of the respondent was distinguished on the ground that in that case .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP86
..... that the lands covered by clauses (i) to (iv) were not khudkasht on the date of vesting under the abolition of proprietary rights (estates, mahals, alienated lands) act, 1950, and would, therefore, agree with the order proposed by my lord the chief justice in the last paragraph of his opinion. naik, j. 14. the question for ..... could not be made nugatory without any specific adjudication of the rights of a person in whose favour the entry was made.51. fifthly, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the proprietor that any other interpretation would create a number of anomalies, such as if the land were in possession ..... of garden 01 orchards, is a species of agriculture in its primary and more general sense.' ramesam, j., in pavadai pathan v. ramaswami chetti, ilr 45 mad 710: air 1922 mad 351, referred to the following connotation of agriculture': 'whartons' law lexicon adopts the definition of 'agriculture' in edw. vii c. 36, as including horticulture, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP73
..... court and i find that the conclusion arrived at is based on firm premises, and as held by their lordships in the case ot sarjuprasad v. raja jwaleshwari prasad, 1950 scr 781 : (air 1951 sc 120), it was not open to the lower appellate court to disturb it ligntiy.18. the learned additional district judge, it appears from his judgment, has ..... the property as his own, but asserted title in rewadmal. that being so, he had no locus standi to go in appeal. in my opinion, his argument has no force, it is true that ganpatlal, after the death of rewadmal bad a dual capacity. he was defendant in the suit from before and he was the legal representative of ..... was filed. the three defendants resisted the plaintiffs suit on three different grounds. rewadmal claimed that the house was bequeathed to him by kapolibai under a will dated 11-4-1950. that will is marked as ex. d1 and shall heareafter be called the 'disputed will.' shyamlal claimed the title to the house in himself. ganapatlal did not claim .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP175
..... the chaff within two days and i am prepared to incur the cartage. otherwise a suit will be instituted against you'. 10. in the second notice dated 29-11-1950 ex. d. 1 the plaintiff's legal adviser wrote to the defendant (when rendered into english) 'you have not returned the goods. therefore by this notice you ..... the detention by the bailee wrongful. according to him there must be a 'refusal' by the bailee. the learned counsel relief on kuppuswami mudaliar v. pannalal sowcar, air 1942 mad 303 in support of his argument. there it was held : 'where the plaintiff entrusts specific moveable property to the defendant on the understanding that the same ..... to be seen whether article 49 of the indian limitation act applies to this case. it may be recalled that the cause of action arose when gwalior limitation act was in force but before the suit was instituted the indian limitation act had been extended by part b states (laws) act. however, that makes no difference because the period of limitation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP157; 1960CriLJ613
..... is made by the authority concerned. the supreme court laid down in province of bombay v. khushaldas s. advani, air 1950 sc 222, some of the tests to find out whether an authority making an order under an act acts in a quasi-judicial or in an administrative capacity. in that case, the proposition that whenever there is adetermination of ..... .11. the view taken by us is supported by several authorities. in kishore singh v. state of rajasthan, air 1954 raj 264, it was held that an order cancelling a licence under section 18 of the arms act was only an administrative or executive order and was not open to review by a writ of certiorari. in kshirode ..... namely, that it was without jurisdiction.the decisions in chand singh v. commissioner, burdwan, air 1958 cal 420 and godha singh v. district magistrate, ferozepore, air 1956 punj 33, are to the effect that the reasons on which the competent authority has to act in the matter of cancellation or grant or renewal of a licence are reasons of safety .....
Tag this Judgment!