Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP333
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by appellant No. 1, Nirmalchand, and is directed against the order of Mudholkar, J. in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 89 of 1949. His grand-mother Mst. Rajrani has formally joined as appellant No. 2. The Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the final decree of satisfaction passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1934.2. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was filed on 10-2-1934 for recovery of Rs. 2,79,596/- and odd due on a simple mortgage bond, dated 13-8-1921. The sum advanced was Rs. 2,00,000/- which carried interest at 11 annas per cent, per mensem, with half yearly rests, the interest to be added to the principal on default and liable itself to carry interest at the same rate. The respondents paid Rs. 1,37,121/- towards the debt before the institution of the suit.As there was some dispute about calculation of interest, a round sum of Rs. 2,61,000/-, which roughly included interest at the agreed rate, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP417
B.K. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal against a decision of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, holding that the contract in the suit is champertous and cannot be specifically enforced; but at the same time it granted a decree for Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has come in second appeal and desires specific performance of the contract and prays for the restoration of the trial Court's decree.2. The facts of the case are: Lala Ram Dube (respondent No.3) is the father, respondent No. 1 Smt. Chhuttanbai is his daughter and respondent No. 2 Moolchand is his son. There were disputes between father and son about the property which according to the former was self-acquired, and according to the latter was ancestral. The wife of Moolchand (respondent No. 2) also filed a suit against her father-in-law for the return of her ornaments.The son had no money to file a suit for partition; so he approached the plaintiff for some money. The plaintiff agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP21
Samvatsar, J.1. This is defendants' first appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class, Guna, to recover from them a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, The plaintiff's case as laid out in the plaint is that the defendants who are members of a joint Hindu family and carry on business in the name of Mansukhdas Khemchand, had from time to time borrowed various sums of money from the plaintiffs; that an account of these dealings, was made on 28-5-1939 when a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was found due to the plaintiffs; that the defendant No. 1, who was then the manager of the business and Karta of the joint family admitted the correctness of the balance and affixed his signature to the debit entry in plaintiffs' Bahi.It is then alleged in the plaint that on 25-4-1942 the defendant No. 3 borrowed a further sum of Rs. 125/- and signed the debit entry in the plaintiff's Bahi acknowledging receipt of this loan that on 27-5-1945 defendant No. 3 appro...
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 : AIR1958MP299
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Election Tribunal, Chhatarpur, dated 22-11-1957, in Election Petition No. 458 of 1957.2. The matter arises Out of the parliamentary election for the Rewa constituency in this State. The present appellant was a voter for that constituency. At the election eight candidates contested for the seat and one Shiv Dutt Upadhyaya, who is the respondent in this appeal, succeeded, having rolled 41,745 votes. The present election petition as well as the appeal have been filed by the voter Prabhucharan presumably in the interest of one Smt. Rama Mitra who polled 21,318 votes.The main contention on behalf of the appellant, (which was the same in the Tribunal below), is that by the allotment of multifarious symbols to the so-called Socialist Party there was confusion in the voting and the voters were not able to cast their votes as they would otherwise have, and that it also entailed a considerable amount of propaganda work against the other parties. Me co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP282; [1959]10STC117(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J.1. This reference under Section 13(1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, has come up before me for hearing on a difference of opinion having arisen between my learned brothers Newaskart., and Samvatsar J., who first heard the reference, The facts and circumstances in which the reference has been made, have been stated in the opinion expressed by my learned brothers. It is not necessary for me to repeat all these facts & circumstances. The relevant facts, however, can be very shortly stated. Section 11 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act gives a right of appeal to an assessee against any assessment or order of refund or penalty to the prescribed authority.It also prescribed the form in which an appeal is to be preferred, the procedure for its hearing, limitation for filing an appeal, the powers of the appellate authority and inter alia says that every order passed in appeal under the Section shall, 'subject to the powers of revision conferred by Section 12 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP355
B.K. Chaturvedi, J. 1. An issue has been framed about the necessity of a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, before the filing of the present suit. It is not disputed that the Municipality had been superseded and an Administrator appointed. Probably the attention of the Court below was not drawn to Tikaram Vithoba v. Municipal Committee, Sindi, 1954 Nag LJ 683 (A) which lays down that after supersession of a Municipal Committee under Section 57 (2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, the committee is wholly out of picture and Section 48 of the Municipalities Act does not apply to a Municipal Committee which is rendered dormant by its supersession; but that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply as the property of the Committee vests in the State. This ruling was binding on the Court below. 2. The above decision of Mndholkar J. seeks to extend the principle enunciated in the Division Bench decision reported in Damodar Tukaram Mangalmoorti v. Municipal Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1614
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. This petition under Article 228 of the Constitution is founded on the contention T that the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, was unconstitutional and void, as it unreasonably restricted the fundamental right of the petitioner to manufacture and sell his patent' and proprietary medicine, 'Germs Killer' without disclosing on the carton or label of the drugs Its true formula Or list of ingredients.2. The relevant facts may shortly be stated as follows: The petitioner is the manufacturer of a medicinal preparation which he manufactures, stocks, exhibits, distributes and sells under an invented proprietary name 'Germs Killer' since before the year 1928. The name 'Germs Killer1 of the said medicine has been registered under the Trade Marks Act. The medicine is manufactured and sold by the petitioner for the external treatment of skin diseases.3. It is not disputed that the said medicinal-preparation is a drug within the meaning of Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP183
T.P. Naik, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the proprietor of the 'Bhartiya Bhandar' whose Hindi publication 'Naya Sahitya Sourabha', parts 1 to 4, hadbeen sanctioned and prescribed as one of the text books in 'Hindi' for the middle school classes in Mahakoshal in the syllabus of studies for classes V to VIII of the middle school for the academic year 1958-59 by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter called the Board).His main complaint is that the State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent No. 1) and the Director of Public Instruction (respondent No. 2) have -- vide notification, dated 1-6-1958, (Annexure E) -- changed the said syllabus of the course of studies for the year 1958-59 and onwards for the middle school classes and substituted a new syllabus in contravention of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Regulations made thereunder (hereinafter called the Regu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP30
V.R. Nevaskar, J.1. The appeal involves consideration of a question regarding limitation.2. Plaintiff Mohammad Hussain Bohara of Sanawad filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 6800/- on the allegations that the defendant had agreed to sell to him the corrugated iron sheets covering the entire premises of the 'Merchant Gin' at Sanawad which the latter had agreed to purchase from a third party at the rate of Annas 3 1/4 per square foot. The contract was entered into on 31-1-1949 and the plaintiff paid Rs. 5000/- towards the contract.The delivery of the sheets was agreed to be given within thirty days. A document containing, these terms was executed between the parties. The defendant, it is said, failed to give delivery as agreed before 3-3-1949 and prayed for the extension of the period for delivery. The plaintiff agreed to the extension by a fortnight. There was further extension by three days subsequent to the date fixed for delivery under the earlier extension up to 1-4-1949.But even...
Tag this Judgment!