Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP223
ORDERTare, J. 6. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor against the order, dated 7-11-1959, passed by Shri S.N. Chaturvedi, Additional District Judge, Panna, in Execution Case No. 2 of 1959, arising out of the execution proceedings, relating to Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1955, and Civil Revision No. 59 of 1955, decided by the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner of the former State of Vindhya Pradesh on 23-12-1955.7. This appeal, involves a question of limitation only. The question arises under the following circumstances :The Judicial Commissioner Vindhya Pradesh, by order, dated 23-12-1955, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 85 o 1955 and Civil Revision No. 59 of 1955, allowed the same with costs and set aside the decree and order of the court below. Although the judgment and the order were delivered on 23-12-1955, no decree was drawn up till 26-10-1956. On that date, a decree was drawn up and signed in the appeal. As no decree was required to be drawn up in the revision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1962]44ITR242(MP)
DIXIT C.J. - In this reference under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act the question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal is :'Whether, having regard to section 2 (11) (i) (a) read with its proviso, the assessee is entitled to take the year ended March 31, 1950, as the previous year for the purpose of the assessment year 1950-51 in respect of a source of income, the income from which was computed according to Maru year ended with Diwali for the earlier assessment years for the purpose of determining the assessees total world income for those years ?'The facts which give rise to the question are as follows : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family with its head office at Indore and branches at several places. It derives its income from property, business in cotton and oil seeds, speculation, dividends, managing agency commissions, etc. Prior to the assessment year 1950-51, which is the assessment year in question, the family was assessed in the status of a non-resident Hindu undi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP367
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against several orders passed by the Transport Authorities constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which, for brevity, would hereinafter be called the Act.2. By an order dated 25 March 1953 (Annexure III), the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (respondent 2), rejected the petitioner's objections and granted to the Raipur Transport Co. (Private) Ltd. (respondent 4) a stage carriage permit for service between Raipur and Mandla with a direction that the timings would be regulated by the Secretary-Member separately. This grant was made on the respondent 4 undertaking to surrender its alternate day stage carriage permit for service on a part of the route, namely, Kawardha to Mandla.It appears that the alternate day permit was subsequently surrendered. By an order dated 28 March 1958, the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur (respondent 3) granted to the petitioner a stage carriage permit for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP146
Naik, J. 1. My opinion in this case shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 144, 145 and 154 of 1960.2. All these petitions raise a common question of law, were heard together and can be disposed of by a common order. They are all directed against the orders of the Collector, Damoh, requisitioning the godowns of the petitioners for what he alleged was 'a public Purpose', viz., for storage of Government foodgrains. The orders have been passed in exercise of the powers conferred on all the Collectors under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation (Requisition) Act (No. LXIII of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act), read with Section 14 thereof by the State Government vide Home (General) Department Notification No. 2866/II-A (3), dated the 3rd July, 1959. The petitions seek to get the said orders quashed by a writ of certiorari or by any other appropriate writ, order or direction, inter alia, on the following grounds, which are being considered first as they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP117
Pandey, J.1. On a reference made by Tare, J., the question referred to the Full Bench is :'Whether the suit of a plaintiff money lender is liable to be dismissed if he does not hold a registration certificate relating to the period when the money lending transactions were entered into or whether it is sufficient if the plaintiff-money lender produces during the pendency of the suit a registration certificate relating to a period subsequent tothe money-lending transactions.'2. The facts of the case are simple and may be stated in a few words. On the foot of a promissory note dated 19 March 1956, the applicant, who is a moneylender, advanced to the non-applicants a ban of:Rs. 850. When the applicant subsequently filed a suit to recover the amount with interest from the non-applicants they resisted it. The Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on two grounds. The applicant did not produce her certificate of registration required to be taken under Section 11-B of the Central Provinces and B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP280; 1962MPLJ281
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This is an application for review of an order dated 20-8-1959 by which Miscellaneous Petition No. 254 of 1957, was dismissed. That petition was directed against an order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, dated 8th February, 1957, whereby its own earlier order dated 15th February, 1951, confirming the sale of malik-makbuza plot No. 32 of village Gorakh-pur, together with a house standing thereon, was reviewed, the confirmation of sale was set aside and a fresh confirmation of that sale was interdicted.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the order dated 20th August, 1959, which was passed on a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution, cannot, in the absence of any power conferred by the statute, be reviewed at all. Reliance is placed upon In Re, prahlad Krishna, ILR (1951) Bom 181: (AIR 1951 Bom 25) (FB) and Hajee Suleman v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, (S) AIR 1955 Madh-B 108. These cases lend soma support to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP301
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree dismissing his suit for compensation, in respect of a consignment belonging to him, of a boiler and attached parts, carried by the Railway from Kanpur to Sehore, parts of which on arrival were found to have got broken, and parts missing. The questions for decision at this stage are,(i) Whether the suit was bad, (a) for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 77, Railways Act, the claim being preferred in writing more than after six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage; (b) for non-joinder, as party, either of the two railway administrations i.e. Northern Railway administration to which the goods were delivered by the consignor and the Central Railway administration over which the goods had to be carried during the latter part of the transport; (c) for limitation under Article 30, and the effect, if any, of the defendant's not having pleaded that the suit had been filed beyond the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP240; 1963MPLJ261
Shrivastava, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in Civil Suit No. 7-B of 1957, which was instituted by the respondent Municipal Committee, Bilaspur, for recovery of amount due on the basis of a contract. The claim was decreed by the trial Court in full.2. The following facts are not in dispute.The respondent Municipal Committee had imposed fees on the sale of cattle in Bilaspur at the rate of three pies per rupee on the sale price of such cattle. The right to realise these fees was sold by auction and appellant No. 1 Ramkripal offered a bid of Rs. 50,050/- which was accepted. The contract was duly reduced into writing and appellant No. 1 thus became entitled to realise the fees for the period 1-4-1954 to 31-3-1955. The other appellants stood sureties for appellant No. 1 for payment of the amount due under the contract. Appellant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 12,512/- at the time of the auction. He further paid a sum of Rs. 7,299-4-0 till 23-8-1954. The amount under the contract was to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP151
ORDERP.R. Sharma, J.1. This revision application has been preferred by the plaintiff, whose suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 489/9/- on the basis of a bond has been dismissed by both lower Courts.2. It was alleged in the plaint that the respondent took a cash loan of Rs. 410/- on 15-11-1953 agreeing to repay the loan by instalments of Rs. 10/- per month with interest at 12% per annum. The defendant repaid only a sum of Rs. 50/-. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs. 360/- as principal, Rs. 129/- by way of interest and annas -/9/- as notice charges.3. The suit was originally Instituted in the name of firm 'Kaluram Chhotelal'. Thereafter by an amendment of the plaint the names of Kaluram and Chhotelal as proprietors of the firm 'Kaluram Chhotelal' were substituted as plaintiffs in place of the firm. The plaintiffs signed the amended plaint on 30-9-1959.4. The trial Court held that the suit was barred by Section 22 of the Limitation Act. This finding was, however, set aside on appeal by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP245
Pandey, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against two notices dated 5th December 1958, one for the period 7th November 1953 to 26th October 1954 (Annexure III) and another for the period 27th October 1954 to 5th September 1955 (Annexure IV), by which the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur (respondent 3), who had entertained the petitioner's appeals against the assessment of sales tax on their turnover for the two periods proposed to tax the turnover of certain transactions made during those periods, which were said to be liable to tax under Section 4(6) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter, called the Act) but were not taxed by the assessing authority.2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated. The petitioners carry on the business of manufacturing and selling bidis on a large scale. They have their head office at Jabalpur where they are registered as a dealer for purposes of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!