Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965MP77
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 22 of 1963.2. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Cash Grants Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The petitioners seek a declaration that the Act is invalid, ultra vires and unenforceable and pray that the opponent State be restrained by a suitable direction from putting the Act into operation.3. One of the petitioners claims to be the recipient of a cash payment of Rs. 500 per month as a muafidar from the respondent-State. The other petitioner says that as a silledar he is entitled to receive a cash payment of Rs. 72.50 nP. per month from the State, The petitioners claim that their right to receive these cash payments is 'property right' and that the impugned legislation has been enacted for the purpose of depriving them and other 'recipients of cash grants' of their property rights. Shortly stated their...
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 : AIR1966MP67
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and decree of Pandey J., affirming those of the executing Court, raises the question whether on sale of land in execution of a decree for realisation of money, the auction-purchaser ipso facto acquires title to the growing crops. The learned Single Judge answered it in the affirmative. This is judgment-debtor's appeal.2. Smt. Shyamabai had a decree against the appellant Chhatradharilal for recovery of money. In execution of that decree, extensive lands belonging to the judgment-debtor were attached and sold. The decree-holder herself purchased the property for Rs. 30,000/- in Court sale. A sale certificate declaring her to be the purchaser of Khudkasht and sir lands, area 300.86 acres in village Thelka, was issued. In the sale certificate, khasra numbers together with area of every one of them were specified. It was on an application filed by decree-holder's agent, asserting that the decree-holder was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP117
Pandey, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against-(i) an order dated 2nd February 1965 whereby R. S. Shukla, Special Secretary to the State Government in the Home Department, approved under Section 68D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), Schemes Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 with certain modifications, all these Schemes having been prepared and published earlier under Section 68C of the Act; (ii) the subsequent publication of Scheme No. 2 in the Official Gazette dated 12th February 1965 as required by Section 68D (3) of the Act; and (iii) a notice dated 26th February 1965 Issued under Section 68F (2) of the Act by which certain permits held by the petitioner for some routes covered by Scheme No. 2 were cancelled. 2. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 126 of 1965, some other existing operators have claimed similar reliefs in regard to the same Scheme No. 2. For like reliefs, similar Miscellaneous Petitions, Nos. 129 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967MP221
Naik, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, a minor, filed, a suit, through his next friend Durga Vinod Singh, for a declaration that the sale-deed, dated 28-8-1959, executed by his eldest brother, Gopal Singh (respondent No. 1) as the karta of the joint Family, consisting of himself and his brothers, viz., Raj Bahadur Singh and the minor plaintiff Baldeo Singh, was void, as it was not executed for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. It was also averred in the plaint that the suit property in respect of which the declaration was sought was in possession of tenants, who had not yet attorned to the vendees; nor had the defendants-vendees been able to obtain possession of the suit property from the tenants in any other way. It was also pleaded, in the alternative, that as the plaintiff was a minor and as the permission of the Court had not been obtained in accordance with the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the sale-deed in question was void in any case to the extent of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967MP34; [1967]63ITR689(MP)
Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Straw Products Ltd. a public company incorporated in the former State of Bhopal, prays that the Taxation Laws (Merged States) (Removal of Difficulties. Amendment Order, 1962, be declared ultra vires, inoperative and of no effect whatsoever, and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing assessments of income-tax made on it on 4-3-1958 for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54, as also the assessments made for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1960-61. The petitioner also seeks a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the assessments for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66. 2. The matter arises thus. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of straw-boards and other allied products. It was incorporated in the quondam State of Bhopal in 1938. Under an agreement concluded between the Company and the Government of the Bhopal State, the Company was exempted from p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968MP135; 1968MPLJ107; [1968]21STC465(MP)
Bhave, J. 1. The Sales Tax Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M. P.) has made this reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. The question referred to us is:'Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case the sales amounting to Rs. 34,468.38 np. were sales made in the course of inter-State trade and commerce or intra-State sales?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee firm deals .in manganese ore extracted from a mine in Balaghat District. The assessee was assessed on the sale of manganese worth Rs. 1,04,070/- on the basis that the sales were intra-State sales. The assessee had claimed deductions for the sales worth Rs. 34.568.35 nP. on the ground that said sales were inter-State sales exempt from the State tax. This claim was negatived by the Sales Tax Authorities; but the Tribunal upheld it.3. The sales in question were effected in favour of Messrs. Rambahadur Thakur & Co., Nagpur, and...
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!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ268MP
P.V. Dixit, C.J.1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of ceritorari for quashing an order of the Vice-Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, reverting Mm from his appointment in Class I to Class II service.2. The matter arises thus. In August 1962, the petitioner joined service in the former State of Madhya Bharat, and was appointed as a Lecturer in Agronomy, He was con-firmed la that post, on 27 November 1968. On 13 September 1956 he was appointed as Agronomists at the Agricultural Research, Institute, Gwaller, in the higher scale of Rs. 300-20--500. According to the return filed by the respondent-State, this appointment in the higher scale was temporary. According to the applicant after the formation of the new State of Madhya Pradesh he was directed to take charge as Professor of Agriculture on 7 October 1958; that there-after for some reason, not made known to him, the Government did not consider his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968MP199; 1968MPLJ338
ORDERShrivastava, J. 1. These three petitions for revision (Civil Revisions Nos. 99. 138 and 139 of 1967) under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act are against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon. They were first heardby one of us (Shrivastava J.); but as there was some difference of opinion between the different Judges of this Court on the interpretation of Section 77C of the Indian Railways Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Railways Act'), he made recommendation under Rule 9, Chapter 1 of the High Court Rules for placing the cases before a larger Bench and that is how the matter has come before us.2. The following facts are no longer in dispute in all the three cases:(i) the plaintiffs had booked at railway risk a consignment of groundnut oil from Kurnool to Rajnandgaon; (ii) the oil was contained in old used tins with dents and the tins were defectively packed. (iii) the condition of defective packing was noted in the forwarding note; (iv) the oi...
Tag this Judgment!