Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-06-1960
Reported in : AIR1960MP307; [1960(1)FLR326]; (1960)IILLJ543MP
Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition by the Managing Director of the company named Sir Sarupchand Hukum-chand (Private) Ltd., under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is directed against the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Madhya Pradesh and Additional Inspector of Factories both of Ujjain.2.The only question raised in this petition is as regards the vires of the Provisions, which were initially brought into force by means of the Ordinance No. IV of 1957 dated 27-4-1957 issued by the President of India, giving them retrospective effect from 1-12-1956 and which later were enacted by the Parliament and became a part of the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as Section 25FFF. The said Provision is as follows:'1. Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure, shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-09-1960
Reported in : AIR1960MP253
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-25-1960
Reported in : AIR1960MP345
Shiv Dayal, J.1. While protecting tenants against their eviction from residential and non-residential accommodation, the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act No. 23 of 1955 (hereinafter called the 1955 Act) permits suits for eviction in certain exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional grounds, e. g. default in payment of arrears of rent, causing of substantial damage, sub-letting, creating nuisance etc. are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (n) of Section 4, which is the prohibitory section. Under Clause (g), in the case of a residential accommodation, and under Clause (h), in the case of a non-residential accommodation, a landlord can sue for eviction of his tenant on the ground of his requirement. Section 4(h) runs thus:''4. No suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds;* * * * *(h) in the case of non-residential accommodation, that the landlord genuinely requires the accommodation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-26-1960
Reported in : AIR1961MP110; 1961CriLJ516
Shrivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund, on 11-4-1958 ordering the petitioner to leave India on the ground that he is a Pakistan citizen and has overstayed the period of his visa. Ten other similar petitions involving commonquestions of law were heard along with this petition. They are: S. No.Case No.Filed by.1.Misc. Pet. No. 290/1958Mohammad Murtaza Khan2.Misc. Pet. No. 61/1959Issab alias Yusuf3.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 39/1958Akbarkhan Alam Khan4.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 59/1958Maujmabibi & others5.Misc. Pet. No. 139/1957Kalloo s/o Noor Mohd.6.Misc. Pet. No. 206/1957Gulam Rasool7.Misc. Pet. No. 6/1958Mohammd Yusuf8.Misc. Pet. No. 168/1958Mohammad Abbas9.Misc. Pet. No. 70/1959Shabrati s/o Mangoo10.Misc. Pet. No. 371/1958Ghulam Mahmmmod KhanAll these petitions, except S. No. 3, are directed against the orders of the District Superintendent of Police or the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-30-1960
Reported in : AIR1961MP49
Dixit, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of second appeal No. 33 of 1959. The questions that arise for determination in this reference lie within a very narrow compass. They are: whether in a suit pending on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, a decree for eviction can be passed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act; whether a decree for eviction obtained before 1st January, 1959 can be executed against a tenant so long as the Act is in force except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 4; and whether a person whose tenancy has come to an end before the commencement of the Act is a tenant for the purposes of the Act and can claim the protection given under the Act. As the question whether a person whose tenancy has been determined is a tenant within the meaning of the Act, has been decided directly by a Division Bench of this Court in Bankelal v. Sant Sharan, 1959 MP LJ 589, and the correctness of that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-30-1960
Reported in : AIR1960MP330; [1961]43ITR184(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company prays for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction restraining the opponents from making any assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act and from levying or collecting income-tax from the Company for a period of twelve years from June 1949 in respect of income of the Weaving Division and for a period of twelve years from February 1954 in respect of the income of the Staple Fibre Section of the petitioner-Company.2. The events leading to the supplicant's claim for exemption from taxation are that in order to promote the industrial development of the former Gwalior State and to facilitate the establishment of certain industries in the State, the Maharaja of Gwalior on the recommendation of his Minister for Industries, Commerce and Communications, made an order on 18-1-1947 exempting from any form of taxation for a period of twelve years the income of certain industries and factori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-22-1960
Reported in : AIR1961MP10; 1961CriLJ89
Krishnan, J.1. The appellant Mojiya s/o Ralan Bhil (25) of Sagur Bhagur, Thana Gogava, has been convicted under Section 302 I. P.C., for the murder of Ganpat Ahir (a fellow villager) on the night of 3-12-1958 while he was walking towards his village Sagur Bhagur from the bus stop at village Temarna about two miles away, by hitting him several times with a knife, with the intention, of killing him, for the purpose and relieving Him of most of the sum of about 800/- and odd which he was bringing home from a merchant at Khargone. The learned Sessions Judge has awarded the lesser penalty of life imprisonment, because:'Ganpat who was advised by numerous witnesses not to undertake a journey at night with money, yet undertook the journey without heeding their advice, and gave a cause and temptation to the accused to take recourse to this ghastly crime, and also in view of the fact that the accused committed this crime out of total poverty and desperation.' He himself had denied everything, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-11-1960
Reported in : AIR1961MP13; 1961CriLJ92; 1962MPLJ246
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. The applicant in revision has been convicted under Section 9(a) of the Indian Opium Act, as amended by the Madhya Bharat Act 15 of 1955 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a year and a half and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-with further rigorous imprisonment in default. This was for the possession without licence of about 4 seers of raw opium, by the applicant in his house and seized by a raiding party consisting of excise officers, police officers and two respectables (panchas) of the locality. The applicant set up a plea that the bag containing 4 seers, or to be more precise 3 seers and 14 chhataks opium, was openly taken into the house by a head constable, a member of the raiding party, and planted there. This was disbelieved both by the Magistrate and by the Sessions Court.2. The applicant has come here repealing the story of planting which is of course a plea of fact, and adding the following grounds of law (1) that the Madhya Bharat Act 15 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-08-1960
Reported in : AIR1961MP193; 1962MPLJ112
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, No. 70 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act).2. Maghanmal applied on 9-9-1952, to the Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the 1951 Act for adjustment of his debts. In the list of creditors he mentioned the name of Mulchand with the remark that the owed him nothing still he (Mulchand) demanded repayment of an alleged loan. Other creditors are not concerned with this revision.3. Mulchand had made a separate application under Section 10 of the 1951 Act making a claim of Rs. 5,500/- against Maghanmal. On 1-5-1953, that petition was dismissed on the ground that Maghanmal had already filed a petition under Section 5 of the Act. Thereupon, on 16-9-1953, Mulchand made an application to the Tribunal in Maghanmal's case, for the determination of his debt. Maghanmal resisted Mulchand's claim. Shri S.L. Chopta, learned Civil Judge First Class, acting as the tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-12-1960
Reported in : AIR1961MP322
Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act by which the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No, 26-A of 1959 staying the proceedings in the suit under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is challenged.2. The main contention urged on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is that it is too late now for the applicant to ask for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter Called the 'Act') inasmuch as he has already taken 'other steps in the proceedings' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Act.3. It is necessary to state the facts briefly to appreciate the contentions of the parties. The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of damages on account of breach of contract for plying ferries from two ghats. The plaintiff has claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 14,838/-. He alleges that he has paid Rs. 31,000/- towards the lease amount of Rs. 39,666/-in respect of one gha...
Tag this Judgment!