Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP33; 1958CriLJ181
Samvatsar, J.1. This revision application is filed by accused Haji Usman who has been convicted of anoffence under Section 46 (a) of the Ayat Niryat Kar Vidhan, Samvat 2006 read with Madhya Bharat Government Notification No. 7 dated 14th August, 1948 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly stated as follows :2. On 2-11-1950 the petitioner despatched from his shop at Dewas 309 tins of groundnut seed oil for being exported to the then Bhopal State. The truck in which these tins were being carried was checked a little aheadof Daulatpur Custom Post in the territory of Madhya Bharat and as export of this oil from Madhya Bharat was then prohibited, the tins were seized and the accused-petitioner was prosecuted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate First Class, Sonkatch.3. The accused denied having committed any offence but the learned Magistrate found Mm guilty and sentenced him to suffer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964MP81; 1965MPLJ96
Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application by the proprietors of an industrial unit consisting of number of factories in an enclosed area covering more than ten acres and assessed to a building tax (bhavan kar) at the minimum rate of 4 annas per hundred square feet of ground area, by the local authority, which is the Gram Panchayat Susari in Tehsil Kukshi of District Dhar. This is the non-applicant No. 1and for the reasons, that will presently appear, the State of Madhya Pradesh has been made opposite party No. 2. Because the area is several hundred thousand square feet, the bhavan kar assessed is Rs. 1066/- per acre.The prayer is that this assessment should be declared illegal, because for one thing, the law under which it is being levied is bad for excessive delegation to the Government, and further the legal position is worsened by a second delegation on the part of the Government to the Director of Panchayats, and a further delegation by him at least of part of the power to the local a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP49
Dixit, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of second appeal No. 33 of 1959. The questions that arise for determination in this reference lie within a very narrow compass. They are: whether in a suit pending on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, a decree for eviction can be passed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act; whether a decree for eviction obtained before 1st January, 1959 can be executed against a tenant so long as the Act is in force except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 4; and whether a person whose tenancy has come to an end before the commencement of the Act is a tenant for the purposes of the Act and can claim the protection given under the Act. As the question whether a person whose tenancy has been determined is a tenant within the meaning of the Act, has been decided directly by a Division Bench of this Court in Bankelal v. Sant Sharan, 1959 MP LJ 589, and the correctness of that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP117
Pandey, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against-(i) an order dated 2nd February 1965 whereby R. S. Shukla, Special Secretary to the State Government in the Home Department, approved under Section 68D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), Schemes Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 with certain modifications, all these Schemes having been prepared and published earlier under Section 68C of the Act; (ii) the subsequent publication of Scheme No. 2 in the Official Gazette dated 12th February 1965 as required by Section 68D (3) of the Act; and (iii) a notice dated 26th February 1965 Issued under Section 68F (2) of the Act by which certain permits held by the petitioner for some routes covered by Scheme No. 2 were cancelled. 2. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 126 of 1965, some other existing operators have claimed similar reliefs in regard to the same Scheme No. 2. For like reliefs, similar Miscellaneous Petitions, Nos. 129 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP261
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal brought by the defendant No. 1, M/s. Mishrabandhu Karyalaya, Jabalpur and its partners, from the Judgment and decree of the 5th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 31st August 1964, decreeing against them, the plaintiff Sheoratanlal Koshal's claim (A) for recovery of Rupees 15,307.04 paise with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of suit, i.e., from 1st January 1963 till realisation, due on account of the arrears of royalty payable to him on the sales effected upto the end of December 1959 of the book entitled 'Saral Middle School Ank Ganeet', written by his son-in-law Maniram Vishwakarma, the copyright of which had been assigned to him; (B) for rendition of account of the sales effected by them of the book in question and other allied publications thereof, as per the Hyderabad Syllabus or otherwise, during the years 1960, 61, 62 and until the date of accounting, so as to ascertain the amount of royalty which had accrued thereon and be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996MP247
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter the CPC for short) filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26-7-86, passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ho-shangabad in Civil Appeal No. 53-A/81 arising out of judgment and decree dated 1-5-81, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Sohagpur in Civil Suit No. 40-A/80.2. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from interfering with his possession of the land. It was also claimed that the order passed by the competent authority and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sohagpur in Revenue Case No. 735/ A/90 B(3) 74-75 Under Section 11 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act for short) be declared void. The appellant claimed that he was holding Khasra No. of 80,8.87 acres of land situate in village Dhadhiyakishore, Tahsil Sohagpur, District H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP320
Mewaskar, J.1. These four appeals Nos. 81 and 82 of 1957, No. 33 of 1958 and No, 13 of 1959 are between the same parties and are the outcome of an arbitration proceedings consequent upon a private reference to arbitration which resulted in a judgment and decree on the basis of an award. 2. Appeal No. 81 of 1957 is against the order refusing to set aside the award. The appeal was preferred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. Appeal No. 82 of 1957 is directed against the order recording the compromise between the parties after the award had been filed in court. The appeal purports to be under Order 43 (1) (m) of the Civil Procedure Code. Appeal No. 33 of 1958 is directed against the order refusing to issue process of attachment in execution against the privy purse of the defendant judgment-debtor, Nawab of Jaora who is the Ex-Ruler of one of the princely States which initially merged into Madhya Bharat and now forms part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Appeal No. 13 of 1959 is direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(1)MPLJ449
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these batches of petitions mentioned in the schedule annexed herewith shall stand disposed of by this common opinion.2. A reference has been made by the Chief Justice of this Court to this Full Bench to answer the question that 'whether the law laid down in the case of Dr. Vasant v. State of M.P., 1986 MPLJ 295 = 1986 JLJ 115 is correct law or not. In Misc Petition No. 1801/89, it was prayed that section 58(5) and (6) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act No. 5 of 1982) and the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act No. 7 of 1988) may be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.3. The petitioner-Indore Nagar Nigam Karamchari Congress a registered representative body, has challenged the validity of the aforesaid provisions that an employee of the Municipal Corporation cannot be transferred from one to another Municipal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(1999)DMC489
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Despite stringent laws and provisions for deter- rent punishments in them, crimes against women could not be contained because of absence of change in attitude of society towards women and the curse of age-old vicious customs.2. In this case, the victim is a graduate married young girl Sushma Gupta who was found dead with extensive burns all over her body and eight injuries on her person. She has left behind her child Dheeraj, only aged about one year at the time of her death.3. Deceased Sushma was daughter of Amarnath Gupta (P.W. 4) who is an Advocate at Allahabad. Ravi Gupta and Rajesh Gupta (P.W. 11) are her brothers. Nirmala (P.W. 5), Manjula (P.W. 6) and Sarla (P.W. 14) are her sisters. Nathulal Gupta (P.W. 15) is the husband of Sarla and is brother-in-law of the deceased.4. Sushma was married to Pankaj Gupta (appellant No. 2) on 2nd of February, 1987. He is son of Ram Vishnu Gupta (appellant No. 1) who is an Advocate practising at Shahdol. Accused-appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP345
Shiv Dayal, J.1. While protecting tenants against their eviction from residential and non-residential accommodation, the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act No. 23 of 1955 (hereinafter called the 1955 Act) permits suits for eviction in certain exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional grounds, e. g. default in payment of arrears of rent, causing of substantial damage, sub-letting, creating nuisance etc. are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (n) of Section 4, which is the prohibitory section. Under Clause (g), in the case of a residential accommodation, and under Clause (h), in the case of a non-residential accommodation, a landlord can sue for eviction of his tenant on the ground of his requirement. Section 4(h) runs thus:''4. No suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds;* * * * *(h) in the case of non-residential accommodation, that the landlord genuinely requires the accommodation ...
Tag this Judgment!