Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP355
B.K. Chaturvedi, J. 1. An issue has been framed about the necessity of a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, before the filing of the present suit. It is not disputed that the Municipality had been superseded and an Administrator appointed. Probably the attention of the Court below was not drawn to Tikaram Vithoba v. Municipal Committee, Sindi, 1954 Nag LJ 683 (A) which lays down that after supersession of a Municipal Committee under Section 57 (2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, the committee is wholly out of picture and Section 48 of the Municipalities Act does not apply to a Municipal Committee which is rendered dormant by its supersession; but that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply as the property of the Committee vests in the State. This ruling was binding on the Court below. 2. The above decision of Mndholkar J. seeks to extend the principle enunciated in the Division Bench decision reported in Damodar Tukaram Mangalmoorti v. Municipal Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP30
V.R. Nevaskar, J.1. The appeal involves consideration of a question regarding limitation.2. Plaintiff Mohammad Hussain Bohara of Sanawad filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 6800/- on the allegations that the defendant had agreed to sell to him the corrugated iron sheets covering the entire premises of the 'Merchant Gin' at Sanawad which the latter had agreed to purchase from a third party at the rate of Annas 3 1/4 per square foot. The contract was entered into on 31-1-1949 and the plaintiff paid Rs. 5000/- towards the contract.The delivery of the sheets was agreed to be given within thirty days. A document containing, these terms was executed between the parties. The defendant, it is said, failed to give delivery as agreed before 3-3-1949 and prayed for the extension of the period for delivery. The plaintiff agreed to the extension by a fortnight. There was further extension by three days subsequent to the date fixed for delivery under the earlier extension up to 1-4-1949.But even...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP151
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is from a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated 2nd December 1948. It was filed in the Madhya Bharat High Court under Section 25 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act 1949 as it stood before it was amended by Madhaya Bharat Act No. 3 of 1950.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 6th November 1947 by Gulabchand Tongya against the heirs and legal representatives of Govindram Seksaria on the Original Side of the High Court of the former Indore State for specific performance of an agreement whereby, it is said, Govindram Seksaria agreed to sell to the appellant his share in a firm the business of which was to act as managing agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd., Indore.The suit was tried by Sanghi J., who on 11th June 1948 made a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing that on payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of 5/32 of the capital deed of assigning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP195
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore against the orders of the assessing authority passed in 1951 assessing the petitioner to Industrial Tax for the years 1940-48 and Excess Profits Duty for the years 1943-46.2. The undisputed facts in this case are these. In the year 1927 a tax was imposed on the cotton mills at Indore in respect of income, profits and gains earned by them. This was under the Industrial Tax Rules 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the original Rules') promulgated by the Holkar Government. Under the Rules as amended from time to time, provisional assessments were first made and the amount of tax used to be realized.Later, the assessments were finalised by a Board against whose orders a first appeal lay to the Member-in-charge Commerce and Industry and a second appeal lay to the Government. In 1949 the Rules were amended by the Indore Industrial Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP86
Pandey, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of my Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother, Naik J. I fully agree with the conclusions of my Lord the Chief Justice. I had not at first intended to record a separate opinion, but since the main question involved is important, I feel, upon reflection, that I ought to express my opinion.2. The question is whether the lands covered by Clauses (i) to (iv) as enumerated in paragraph 7 of the opinion of my Lord the Chief Justice were Khudkasht lands within the meaning of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (II of 1917).3. Clause (5) of Section 2 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, which defines khudkasht, is as under:''Khudkasht' means that part of the home-farm of a mahal which is cultivated by the proprietor as such and which is not sir-land: Explanation (1) -- Land allowed to lie fallow according to agricultural practice shall be deemed to be cultivated. Explanation (2) -- In this definition 'pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP225
Naik, J.1. The order in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956, 20 of 1957, 102 of 1957 235 of 1957 and 268 of 1957.2. All these cases arise out of assessment proceedings under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and raise some common questions of law. They are, therefore, being disposed of together. In all of them, assessment orders have been made and appeals from the said orders are pending before the appellate authorities under the Act. The petitioners in all these cases are challenging the assessment orders and the notices of demand made thereunder, under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia, on the ground that the assessments in all of them violated Articles 286 and 301 of the Constitution. In letters patent Appeal No. 55 of 1958 Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956 and 20 of 1957, it was also contended that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (Act No. VII of 1956) was Void and...
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 : 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
Reported in : AIR1962MP320
Mewaskar, J.1. These four appeals Nos. 81 and 82 of 1957, No. 33 of 1958 and No, 13 of 1959 are between the same parties and are the outcome of an arbitration proceedings consequent upon a private reference to arbitration which resulted in a judgment and decree on the basis of an award. 2. Appeal No. 81 of 1957 is against the order refusing to set aside the award. The appeal was preferred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. Appeal No. 82 of 1957 is directed against the order recording the compromise between the parties after the award had been filed in court. The appeal purports to be under Order 43 (1) (m) of the Civil Procedure Code. Appeal No. 33 of 1958 is directed against the order refusing to issue process of attachment in execution against the privy purse of the defendant judgment-debtor, Nawab of Jaora who is the Ex-Ruler of one of the princely States which initially merged into Madhya Bharat and now forms part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Appeal No. 13 of 1959 is direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP336
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 27 May, 1961 by which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Indore, rectified under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act), an order of his predecessor-in-office dated 29th May, 1957. By the impugned order, the losses allowed to be carried forward and set off were restricted to those incurred in the taxable territories. In this manner, the losses for the assessment year 194849 carried forward and set off were reduced from Rs. 78,123/-to Rs. 1,075/- and those for the assessment year 1949-50 were similarly reduced from Rs. 3,762/- to Rs. 123/-.2. In the assessment years 194849 and 1949-50, the petitioner, who was assessed as -a non-resident, incurred losses, for the most part in the native State of Indore, to the extent of Rs. 78,123/- and Rs. 3,762/- respectively in the life insurance business carried on by it. From 1 December 1949, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!