Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-15-1994
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ113
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner No. 1- Smt. Usha Raje is the daughter of ex-ruler of Indore State - Maharaja Yeshwant Rao Holkar. Petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 called Princess Usha Trust was constituted by an indenture of trust created by the late ex-ruler executed by him on 10-4-1950. The petitioner No. 4 - Devi Ahilyabai Educational Trust was constituted by a trust-deed executed on 18-12-1973 by Princess Usha Devi who transferred all the properties to the charitable trust.2. Maharaja Yeshwantrao Holkar, the ex-ruler was the owner of all the lands within the Holkar State which included agricultural lands. Before 1950 the Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1931 governed the law relating to the land tenures in the erstwhile Holkar State. 'Under Section 27 of the said Act of 1931 the entire land of Holkar State was the property of Maharaja and no person could get any portion of the land without a lawful authority from him. The sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-19-1994
Reported in : AIR1995MP1
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Certain common questions have been raised in these writ petitions and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners in various petitions are owners of motor vehicles such as trucks, jeeps, tractors, stage carriage vehicles etc. On the allegation that these vehicles have been used for removing forest produce contrary to law, they have been seized by Forest Officers or Police Officers and confiscation proceedings have been intiated orabout to be initiated against them. In most of the cases, action is being taken under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, Central Act), as amended by the Indian Forest (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1983, (for short, 1983 Act). In a few of the cases, action is being taken underthe M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, i.e. M. P. Act 9 of 1969(for short, 1969 Act), as amended by the Amending Act 15 of 1987. In most of the cases, by interim orders, vehicles have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-13-1994
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ94
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. This reference is made by the District Judge, Jabalpur under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We issued notices to the Advocate General, High Court Bar Association and the Jabalpur District Bar Association, indicating that we were prepared to hear any counsel who may examine the legal position and make a useful contribution to the decision on the question referred to.2. We have heard Shri'N. S. Kale, Shri Ravish Agrawal, Shri R. S. Tiwari, Shri Deepak Verma, Shri H. B. Agrawal, Shri R. P. Jain and the Addl. Advocate General Shri Anoop Choudhary.3. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) confers on the High Court what is known as revisional power. The power consists of calling for the record of the case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court and in which no appeal lies and the subordinate Court appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-11-1994
Reported in : I(1995)DMC77
A. Pasayat, J.1. Judgment passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Puri in O.S. No. 39/83 of 1986/82 is the subject matter of challenge in both the appeals though on different grounds. The suit was filed by Jagadananda Mishra, appellant in F.A. No. 70 of 1993 purportedly under Sections 13 and 14 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act'), praying for dissolution of his marriage with Pravati, appellant. In F.A. No. 245 of 1991, by passing a decree of divorce, on the ground that Pravati was of subnormal state of mind which was incurable in nature. His case synoptically is as follows :He married Pravati on 4-2-1982, according to Hindu customary rites. After marriage he discovered that Pravati was suffering continuously from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that it would not be reasonably expected to live as husband and wife with her. She has incomplete development of mind and was suffering from psychopathic disorder of, mind, and, was possessed intelligence of a thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-15-1994
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ938
I.P. Rao, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the tenant against whom a decree for eviction in respect of the ground floor of the house occupied by him as a tenant has been passed.2. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction originally on the grounds of nuisance, arrears of rent and material alteration. By amendment dated 31-7-1979 the landlord added the ground of bond fide requirement on the allegation that his son who is working in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board has been transferred to Jabalpur. Both the courts have ordered eviction on the grounds of nuisance, bona fide need and material alteration by making unauthorised construction of a wall and converting verandah into a room. The second appeal was admitted by this court on 28-9-1993 on the following substantial questions of law :(1) whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree granted by the Courts below for ejectment under Section 12(1 )(a), (c) and (m) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-17-1994
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ250
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Bhagwandas Rathi sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident in 1987. His heirs filed a claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 18,69,600/- as compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle. The owner and the insurer filed separate objections. The Tribunal held that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which was insured. The Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 2.5 lacs and directed the insurer to pay the same. The insurer has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of maintainability of appeal in the light of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, corresponding to Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. The provisions of the two Acts are almost identical. Sub-section (1) of Section 96 states that if a judgment is obtained against the insurer, the insurer shall, subject ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-25-1994
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ67
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. In this petition the election of Smt. Lakshmibai, respondent No. 4, has been challenged on the ground that nomination paper of one Manjit Kaur who figures as respondent No. 2, was wrongly accepted. It is alleged that as a person who was not eligible to take part in the process of election, has been permitted to contest the election, this has materially effected the result of the election.2. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the election of respondent No. 4 can be challenged only by way of an election petition.3. This position is not accepted by the counsel for the petitioner. To counter the argument raised by the State Shri Arun Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the remedy of election petition provided under the Act is illusory inasmuch as election petition has to be preferred before a Sub Divisional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-05-1994
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ936
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. This is an application under Section 44(4) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act) by a dealer dealing in the business of whole pulses and broken pulses. In this application, the assessee wanted three questions of law to be referred to this Court but at the time of arguments, he restricted his submissions to seek a reference with regard to the questions mentioned at S. No. (B) and (C). The English rendering of the questions of law has been given in the petition and these are reproduced below :-'(B) Whether S.T.O. alone is competent authority to impose order of penalty under Section 7(6) of the Entry Tax Act and hence the impugned penalty is illegal and without jurisdiction?(C) Whether the impugned penalty can be said to be just and legal as it has been imposed by ignoring the Explanation that omission to affix seal as required by Section 7(1) of the Act in respect of transactions relating to manufactured broken Dal was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-06-1994
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ791
ORDERI.P. Rao, J.1. This is a revision filed by the State aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal, dated 10-2-1992 in Cri. Revision No. 17/92 directing the release of the jeep to the respondent on furnishing security.2. Shri R. K. Khare, learned Govt. Advocate, submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal, is illegal by virtue of the amendment brought out to Section 30 of the Wild Life Protection (Amendment) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which has come into effect from 2-10-1991. That amendment lays down that any vehicle that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act shall be the property of the Government. This amendment referred to above clearly lays down that the vehicle that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act shall be the property of the Government. This amendment referred to above clearly lays down that the vehicle which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-29-1994
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!