Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(3)MPHT158; 2003(2)MPLJ408
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. This reference has been made to resolve the conflict between two sets of Single Bench decisions of this Court viz.; Sawal Singh, 2002(4) M.P.H.T. 200 = 2002(11) MPJR 169; Narsingh, 2002(11) MPJR 165; and Hanuman Datt, 2002(4) M.P.H.T. 343 = 2002(4) MPLJ 354, on the point of tenability of revision against an order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arising from the order of the Trial Court deciding application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. The question referred for our decision is : 'Whether the order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC deciding an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC one way or the other, can be challenged by taking recourse to revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC' 2. In Sawal Singh and Narsingh (supra), it is held that the order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC in which application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ159
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J.1. The present revision-petition is against the order 6-4-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, in Criminal Case No. 688/1990, whereby the application of the applicant for releasing his truck on Supurtgi was rejected on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction.2. The truck in question was seized by the Forest Department on 8-12-1990 on account of carrying about 35 stones, which, according to the prosecution is a forest produce. But anyhow, the applicant was able to take away his truck from the custody of the forest Department. Therefore, on 8-12-1990, the Forest Department lodged a report in the police station, Raisen to this effect, which is Annexure-A-1. On this the police registered a case under Sections 353 and 186 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant.3. In this case, the applicant, along with other co-accused, was bailed out on 23-12-1990 but according to the applicant, on receiving oral requisition of the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965MP211; 1965MPLJ541
Newaskar, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks to assail the vires of the Regulation No. 4660 published in the Madhya Pradesh Raj Patra Part IV-Ga dated 23-6-1961. The impugned rules are made by the State Government in pursuance of its powers under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act.2. The material circumstances Riving rise In the present petition are as follows:--The petitioner is the proprietor of a sawmill situated on the Nagpur road in Jabalpurwhere he carries on business of sawing timberin rafters etc. The petitioner is a forest contractor and has taken Government forest on leasein 5 Forest Divisions-South and North-Mandla-Divisions, Chhindwara Division, Sagar Division, and Seoul Division. Accordingto him he extracts timber from the aforesaidForest Divisions which pertain to his contractin the shape of logs bearing hammer-markassigned to them by the Forest Officers. Thetimber is moved out of the Forest and is checked by the Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP425
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the civil judge second class, Indore, permitting, the plaintiff non-applicant M/s Central India Motors to amend the plaint in the suit so as to, convert the suit originally filed by Shri Lilaram as Karla of a joint Hindu family firm bearing the name M/s Central India Motors into one as on, behalf of M/s Central India Motors, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act.2. In the suit, as originally filed, the plaintiff alleged that M/s Central India Motors was a joint Hindu family firm of which the Karta was Lilaram; that the plaintiff firm sold to the defendant Govindsingh, who was the Sales Manager and representative of the defendant M/s Vyas Automobiles Nagpur, five motor car tyres and seat-covers; and that the defendant has failed to pay the price of the same. The plaintiff sued to recover the price of these goods together with sales tax and interest thereon.In its written statement the defendant petitioner raised...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT49; 2005(3)MPLJ227
ORDERAjit Singh, J. 1. This revision, by the defendant/applicant is directed against the order dated 11-12-2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2003 by the VIIIth Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, whereby its application under Section 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.2. The defendant/applicant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is also registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The object of the Society, according to its memorandum of association, is to promote various social, economic, educational, cultural activities or any profitable field of activity and activities like giving scholarship, medical aid, etc. to needy persons. To achieve this object, the defendant/applicant undertook the activity of making papad for which it engaged women who were willing to abide by its object. Any woman could become the member of the defendant/applicant by working with it. The defendant/applicant has many branches...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1984MP13
G.L. Oza, J.1. This petition and Misc. Petitions Nos. 1635/83, 1636/83, 1637/83. 1639/83. 1640/83. 1649/83. 1671/83. 1677/83, 1693/83. 1699/83. 1704/83 and 1713/83 raise a common preliminary question and in view of this, notices were issued to the respondents. In response to the notice, a return has been filed raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of these petitions in view of. Section 117 of the M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam. 1981. contending that as an alternative efficacious remedy for challenging the election of pancha-yat is available Under Section 117. the petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. Learned counsel for various petitioners therefore, were heard on this question and the learned Government Advocate was also heard.2. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate that although under Section 117 of the M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam. 1981 rules have not been framed but the officer who can entertain the petition has been notified and. therefore, an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP409
ORDERT.C. Shrivastava, J.1. The only point which arises in this-petition for revision filed by the defendant is whether any part of the cause of action arose at KareliDistrict Narsinghpur, and the court there had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiffs reside in Kareli and defenr dant firm carries on business as commission agent at Bombay. It is not disputed that on 13-7-54, the plaintiff had sent 50 bags of Masur dal to be sold by the defendant as commission agent. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant firm has not properly accounted for the sales and is therefore liable to render accounts.3. The facts alleged in the plaint to bring. the suit within the jurisdiction of the Kareli Court as stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint are these. One Raojibhai residing at Kareli gave himself out as a partner and also as a representative of the firm of defendants and canvassed business for them. In July, 1954, Raoji proposed to the plaintiffs to appoint his firm as adhatias ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP287; 1962MPLJ653; [1962]13STC853(MP)
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution' is directed against certain orders passed and action taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, whereby he declined to entertain second appeals against orders of assess-taewt of sales tax on the ground that, under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (2 of 1959), the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, had jurisdiction to entertain, such appeals.2. For brevity, the details of the various assessment orders, first appeals, second appeals and action taken to regard to second appeals are given in the following table :Period of assessmentDateDate of order infirst appealDate of second appealand action taken1.19-10-1932to6-11-195322-9-19561-4-196120-10-1961 returned2.7-11-1953 to 26-10-195429-12-19561-4-196120-10-1961 returned3.27-10-1954 to 14-11-195524- 4-195810-1-1959.... Transmitted to the Board of Revenue4.15-11-1955 to 2-11-195631-8-196027-12-19604-10-1961 returned3. Prior to the commencemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968MP238; 1968CriLJ1561; 1968MPLJ489
Pandey, J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by Newaskar and Sen JJ. who found themselves unable to concur in the view expressed in the following observations made by another Division Bench of this court in State v. Daulatsingh, AIR 1957 Madh Pra 72.'There are two answers to this contention. The present application for leave to appeal and the proposed appeal are by the State and not by the Forest Ranger, the complainant, Secondly, Sub-section (3) of Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, confers the right of appeal to the complainant in a case instituted upon the complaint of a private person and not upon the complaint of a public servant or of a court. The prosecution on the complaint of a Court or of a public servant acting in the discharge of his official duties being one by the State, and the State having the right of appeal in any case under Section 417 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, the words 'complaint' and 'complainant' in Sub-section (3) can refer only to a private...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP243
ORDERS.P. Bhargava, J.1. This election petition was filed by the petitioner Ramshanker challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Jugalkishore who was elected from a constituency known as 'Hatta 162' constituency of the Vidhan Sabha of Madhya Pradesh. In the election which took place on 17-2-1967, in all fifteen candidates including the petitioner had taken part. The petitioner and the first ten respondents contested the election while respondents 11 to 14 withdrew their candidature after the acceptance of their nomination papers within the time allowed for such withdrawal. The election of the first respondent is challenged on the ground that he resorted to the corrupt practice described in Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act.) The particulars of the said corrupt practice have been specified in paragraphs 6 to 17 of the peti-tion, which, briefly stated, consisted of procuring and hiring vehicles for conveyance of the voters to the ...
Tag this Judgment!