Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP151
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is from a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated 2nd December 1948. It was filed in the Madhya Bharat High Court under Section 25 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act 1949 as it stood before it was amended by Madhaya Bharat Act No. 3 of 1950.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 6th November 1947 by Gulabchand Tongya against the heirs and legal representatives of Govindram Seksaria on the Original Side of the High Court of the former Indore State for specific performance of an agreement whereby, it is said, Govindram Seksaria agreed to sell to the appellant his share in a firm the business of which was to act as managing agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd., Indore.The suit was tried by Sanghi J., who on 11th June 1948 made a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing that on payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of 5/32 of the capital deed of assigning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1960)ILLJ786MP
K.L. Pandey, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal directed against the order of Bhatt, J., dated 8 October 1957, by which the appellant's petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was dismissed.2. The facts of the case are these. The petitioner was employed as a mechanic in Rajnandgaon Rice and Oil Mills on a monthly salary of Rs. 125. He was discharged from service by the employer on 14 March 1955. He made an application under Section 16(1) of the Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (which will hereafter be referred to as the Act), to Sri L.S. Titus, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, exercising the powers of the Labour Commissioner, who, by his order, dated 13 September 1955 passed under Section 16(2) of the Act, 'directed that the petitioner be reinstated within one week of the, order.3. On 19 September 1955, the petitioner's counsel wrote to the employer asking where and when the petitioner should resume his duties. The employer's counsel Sri K. M. Joshi, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP195
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore against the orders of the assessing authority passed in 1951 assessing the petitioner to Industrial Tax for the years 1940-48 and Excess Profits Duty for the years 1943-46.2. The undisputed facts in this case are these. In the year 1927 a tax was imposed on the cotton mills at Indore in respect of income, profits and gains earned by them. This was under the Industrial Tax Rules 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the original Rules') promulgated by the Holkar Government. Under the Rules as amended from time to time, provisional assessments were first made and the amount of tax used to be realized.Later, the assessments were finalised by a Board against whose orders a first appeal lay to the Member-in-charge Commerce and Industry and a second appeal lay to the Government. In 1949 the Rules were amended by the Indore Industrial Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP301
ORDER1. The following question has been referred to this Bench for opinion by one of us (Tare, J.) :'Whether the question whether Gunhari and Sitaram inherited the tenancy lands of their father before 1897 as tenants-iu-common or as joint tenants ought to be decided on the principle of stare decisis or according to the view of the law declared by their Lordships of the Federal Court in Re Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, AIR 1941 F. C. 72.'2. The genealogy of the parties is as under: ABINATH (died before 1897) | ___________________________________________________________ | | Gunhari Sitaram (died in 1897) (died in 1954) | | __________________________________ _____________________________________________________ | | | | | | | Sumitra Gouribai Hira Janki Deok Rewati Derhin (died) (Plff. 1) (Plff. 2) (died) (deft. 1) (deft. 2) (died) | | | ____________________ | | Firat Saradabai Salik Moti (deft. 3) (deft. 4)(Plff. 3) (Plff. 4) 3. The suit property consisting of occupancy lands...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP27
Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act against the order of the Election Tribunal, Chhatarpur, dated 16-7-1958 by which the appellant's election petition under Section 81 of the Act calling in question the election of the respondents 1; and 2 from the Khurai Rural Constituency to the Slate Legislative Assembly was dismissed.2. The constituency in this case is a double- member constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the Scheduled Castes. The polling took place on 9-3-1957 and the respondents 1 and 2, who secured the largest number of votes, were declared elected to the general and the reserved seat respectively. On 25-4-1957, the appellant, who contested the election for the general seat, filed his election petition alleging that the respondent 1, and others acting for the respondents 1 and 2, had committed a number of corrupt practices detailed in schedules A and B and that the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP353
Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner seeks a writ against the non-applicants to compel them to complete the election to the office of the President Municipal Committee, Katni, District Jabalpur. 2. The Collector Jabalpur had published a programme of election to the Municipality of Katni according to which the nomination papers had to be filed by 12-5-1958 and the polling was to take place on 13-6-1958. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for contesting the office of President on 5-5-1958. Section 18 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act) provided for the election of the President directly by all the voters. It was, however, amended by the Madhya Pra-desh Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. 14 of 1958) which came into force on 5-5-1958. By this amendment the President is now to be elected by the members of the Committee. Section 7 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP358; [1960(1)FLR499]
Krishnam, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Bench, in Civil Misc. Case No. 94 of 1956, dismissing the present appellant's petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, and under supervisory jurisdiction, questioning the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhopal, dated 23-10-1956, in the dispute between the appellant, and respondents 3 and 4.2. The crux of the application before the Single Bench was, (i) that the Tribunal had not been properly constituted; (ii) that in any case, it was bound to take the assistance of assessors; and (iii) that it was incompetent to deal with and decide by award the dispute regarding minimum wage, separately from the two other items of dispute mentioned in the reference. It was also averred that the petitioner-appellant was not estopped from raising these questions on account of its failure to raise them at the commencement of the proceedings before the Tribunal; t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP86
Pandey, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of my Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother, Naik J. I fully agree with the conclusions of my Lord the Chief Justice. I had not at first intended to record a separate opinion, but since the main question involved is important, I feel, upon reflection, that I ought to express my opinion.2. The question is whether the lands covered by Clauses (i) to (iv) as enumerated in paragraph 7 of the opinion of my Lord the Chief Justice were Khudkasht lands within the meaning of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (II of 1917).3. Clause (5) of Section 2 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, which defines khudkasht, is as under:''Khudkasht' means that part of the home-farm of a mahal which is cultivated by the proprietor as such and which is not sir-land: Explanation (1) -- Land allowed to lie fallow according to agricultural practice shall be deemed to be cultivated. Explanation (2) -- In this definition 'pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP282
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. All these petitions are on identical grounds against the State Government, by six different grantees of certain uncultivated forest lands, the uncleared portions of which have been resumed by Government after notice to show cause, by orders passed on 27-10-1956. The grounds were that the grantees have violated the conditions of the grant, and it had been further expressly specified that such violation should lead automatically to the cancellation of the grant by Government, and the taking over of the land, and the realization, according to the procedure for arrears of lands revenue, of the value of the produce, if any collected by the defaulting grantees.The Government has, however, given these grantees, such areas or patches as had alreadybeen cleared and made cultivable. It is also not allege that any sums have been realised according to the last condition. The prayer is for the issue of appropriate writs or directions, directing the State Government to withd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP225
Naik, J.1. The order in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956, 20 of 1957, 102 of 1957 235 of 1957 and 268 of 1957.2. All these cases arise out of assessment proceedings under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and raise some common questions of law. They are, therefore, being disposed of together. In all of them, assessment orders have been made and appeals from the said orders are pending before the appellate authorities under the Act. The petitioners in all these cases are challenging the assessment orders and the notices of demand made thereunder, under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia, on the ground that the assessments in all of them violated Articles 286 and 301 of the Constitution. In letters patent Appeal No. 55 of 1958 Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956 and 20 of 1957, it was also contended that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (Act No. VII of 1956) was Void and...
Tag this Judgment!