Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986MP165; 1986MPLJ261
J.S. Verma, Ag. C. J. 1. The only question for decision by us is whether an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is tenable against an interlocutory order passed in an election petition by a single Judge which amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression used in Clause 10. This question has to be answered on the assumption that the . right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent subsists notwithstanding the enactment of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam (29 of 1981) abolishing the right of such appeals since this enactment has been held to be constitutionally invalid by a Full Bench of this Court in Balkrishna Dass v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. AIR 1985 Madh Pra 42. In case it is held that such an appeal is tenable, the appeal has to be heard and decided on merits by a Division Bench which will also decide whether the impugned interlocutory order passed in the election petition amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of t...
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 : I(1991)ACC193; 1990ACJ862; AIR1990MP306; 1990MPLJ387
T.N. Singh, J.1. Three matters are linked up with the Division Bench, making the reference, taking the view that a common question of law arises in all the three matters and the question being of general importance, deserves decision of a Larger Bench. Claimants/appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the Act, in this appeal. During pendency of the claim petition an order waspassed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 134 of 1987 on 31-8-1989. By that order claimants' prayer for enforcement of the interim award, passed in the pending claim petition, under Section 92A of the Act, was rejected. Shortly and precisely, challenge to the correctness of the view expressed therein is the basis of the reference made to this Bench.2. Learned District Judge, Shivpuri, acting as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, for short, the Tribunal, had passed the order dated 18-8-1986 (which was impug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1979]120ITR257(MP)
A.P. Sen, C.J.1. This is a writ petition by Nathuram Kapoor to quash the notice issued by the ITO, 'B' Ward, Indore, dated March 29, 1973, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening of his assessment for the assessment year 1956-57.2. The assessee is a wholesale dealer in cloth and yarn. For the assessment year 1956-57, the accounting year of which ended on 31st March, 1956, the petitioner was assessed on a total income of Rs. 33,077 under Section 23(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as per return filed by him. Along with the return, the petitioner filed profit and loss account. The ITO, 'A' Ward, Indore, by his order of assessment dated January 15, 1957, accepted the return stating that there was all round improvement in results due to the improved tone of the market. It appears that the attention of the ITO was not drawn to the fact that there was a cash credit entry in the books of account for that year showing a deposit by Capt. Narendra-singh Motilal Bhandari to the tun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001MP71; 2000(2)MPHT499
Arun Mishra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Bengal Trading Syndicate, the appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 33-A of 1994 whereby the award passed by the Arbitrator with respect to claims under Item Nos. 3, 5, 31 (a) and 32 was set aside and the award in respect of other claims of the appellant was made rule of the Court. It was ordered that in respect of Claim No. 4 an amount of Rs. 25,584.91, p., in respect of Claim No. 7 an amount of Rs. 1,29,645.00, in respect ofClaim No. 36 an amount of Rs. 50,932.48 p. in respect of Claim No. 9 an amount of Rs. 13,455/-, in respect of Claim No. 12 an amount of Rs. 29,748.54 and in respect of Claim No. 33(a). 33(b) and 37 an amount of Rs. 34,560/- shall be paid by the Union of India to the appellant. It was further directed that the Union of India shall pay to the appellant interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from 14-6-1990 to 24-8-1994 on all awards except award in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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
Reported in : AIR1999MP23
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against a common order of the Board of Revenue passed in three separate cases between the petitioner and respondents 5, 6, & 7 in proceedings under Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short referred to as the 'Act'). It is not disputed that the three parcels of land which were separately in possession of respondents 5, 6 and 7 are recorded as Bhumi Swami Lands in Revenue Records under the Code in the name of petitioner who is a member of Aboriginal Tribe. The three parcels of land were obtained between 1965-1970 by respondents 5, 6 and 7 under a lease on payment of fixed rent per month and for a limited duration. The petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Officer, Durg by three separate applications against respondents 5, 6 and 7 complaining that the respondents 5, 6 and 7 have erected Pakka Structures on the land for running their shops and have neither...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972MP66; 1971MPLJ873
Dwivedi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful respondent No. 4 (State of Uttar Pradesh through Officer-in-charge of the case. Assistant General Manager, U. P. Government Roadways, Agra) against the award of Rs. 7,500/-(Rs. 7,000/- for general damages and Rs. 500/- for expenses of treatment) of the Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. 2. The petitioner Dayali was working as a permanent employee of the folding department of J. C. Mills, Ltd., Birlanagar, Gwalior, drawing pay of Rs. 150/- per month. He owned agricultural field near Moti Jhil on the Agra-Bombay Road. The respondent No. 1 Babulal was the driver of the bus No. U. P. A. 8105 belonging to the respondent No. 4. On the relevant date, 11-2-1967. at 4 p. m., the petitioner Davali was going to his field on a cycle. The respondent No. 1 was driving the aforesaid bus from Gwalior towards Agra on the Agra-Bombay road which dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner remained in the J. A. Hospital as an indoor patient from 11-2-1967 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(1986)ACC314; AIR1986MP251; 1986MPLJ689
B.M. Lal, J. 1. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of the connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 252 of 1984 (Bapulal Kesharimal & Company v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjan and Anr.), No. 878 of 84 (Akhtari Begum & Sons and Anr. v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain and Anr.). No. 3469 of 1984 (Vijay Motor Transport Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.), No. 725 of 1983 (Ramesh Chand v. Regional Transport Authority, Indore and Anr.), No. 1599 of 1985 (Ramprasad Purohit and Anr. v. State of M. P. and Anr.), and No. 3195 of 85 (M. P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.). 2. These petitions are under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners who are bus operators, are seeking to quash the notifications issued by the various Regional Transport Authorities, wherein reservation of bus routes for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes has been notified, on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)MPHT43
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. 1. The tenants/judgment-debtors/applicants who had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree passed against them for their eviction from the premises in dispute under their tenancy and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the said application by the Trial Court which order stands affirmed in appeal, they have now approached this Court by means of the present revision under Section 115, CPC, seeking redress and praying for the setting aside of both the orders.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the tenants/judgment-debtors/ applicants as well as the learned counsel representing the landlord/decree-holder/respondent and have carefully perused the record relating to the proceedings of the original suit as well as the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, giving rise to this revision which had been summoned pursuant to the order passed by this ...
Tag this Judgment!