Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-12-1961
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
Decided on : Feb-16-1961
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
Decided on : Apr-25-1961
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
Decided on : Sep-28-1961
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
Decided on : Oct-05-1961
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!