Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-25-1969
Reported in : AIR1970MP199; 1969MPLJ937
Naik, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this civil revision may shortly be stated as follows;The non-applicant plaintiff Pooranchand filed a civil suit (civil suit No. 31-A of 1958) on 25-8-1958 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge Jabalpur, challenging the adoption of the applicant-defendant Komalchand as the son of one Halkoolal. The suit was dismissed for default of his appearance on 22-4-1959, presumably under Rule 8 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the same date an application for restoration of the suit was made by him under Rule 9 of Order 9 ibid, which was registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 3 of 1959. This application was also dismissed for default of the plaintiffs appearance on 3-9-1959.Against the aforesaid order, dated 3-9-1959, the plaintiff non-applicant on 30-11-1959 filed an appeal (Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 161 of 1959) in the High Court under Rule 1(c) of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal was dismissed su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-17-1969
Reported in : AIR1970MP110; 1970MPLJ90
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Newaskar, J., in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 76 of 1959, was referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Dixit, C. J. and Tare, J. The question which arises in this appeal is whether an order staying a process in an execution proceeding, or a 'partial stay', as it has been sometimes called, is within Section 15 of the Limitation Act and excludes the period during which it was in force. That question arose in the following circumstances, which have been stated to us by the learned counsel as undisputed. 2. On June 14, 1927, a money decree was passed in Civil Suit No. 62 of Samvat 1983 in the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain, (in the erstwhile Gwalior State), in favour of the predecessors-in-title of Kamnarayan appellant, who is now the decree-holder, against the predecessors-in-title of Chunnilal and Anandilal (respondents 3 and 4), now the judgment-debtors. Aggrieved by that decree, an, appeal was prefer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-04-1969
Reported in : AIR1970MP205; [1970]76ITR404(MP); 1970MPLJ403
A.P. Sen, J.1. The question of law stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'A', at the instance of the Commissioner for the opinion of the Court is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 1,67,345 received by the assessee during the year under consideration is covered by the 2nd Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Section 5 of Finance Act, 1955.'2. The sum of Rs. 1,67,345/- represents the payment to the assessee, Capt. H.C. Dhanda on 28th January 1955 by His Highness Maharaja Yeshwant Rao Holkar, the Senior Up-Rajpramukh of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, in full and final settlement of his claim for damages for wrongful termination of his services as personal Adviser to his Highness. The whole question here is, were the moneys which the assessee so received after cessation of his office as compensation, in respect of which he was assessed for the year 1955-56, part of his in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-21-1969
Reported in : AIR1970MP132; 1969MPLJ751
Pandey, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari three orders: (i) one dated 15 May 1963 by which the State Government provisionally absorbed the petitioner as from 1 November 1956, on a post borne on the cadre of Overseers Electrical/Mechanical for purposes of the Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959; (ii) another dated 1 April, 1964 by which the petitioner was intimated that the Central Government had rejected his representation dated 29 December, 1961 against the provisional combined gradation list and (iii) the third dated 4 June, 1965 by which the gradation list was made final as published in the M. P. Rajpatra Extraordinary dated 18 June, 1965. The petitioner has further claimed a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order directing that the post formerly held by him in the erstwhile State of Bhopal be equated with posts higher than those held by Overseers and his pay scale be re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-19-1969
Reported in : AIR1970MP221; 1970MPLJ226
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directedagainst-(i) an order dated February 8, 1967 holding that the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) were rightly applied to the petitioner's establishment; (ii) an order dated April 15, 1967 declining to review the order regarding the applicability of the Act to that establishment; (iii) a notice dated June 21, 1967 intimating to the petitioner the provisional assessment and permtting him, if he so desired, to make any representation against it; and (iv) an order dated October 81, 1967 making the provisional assessment final. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be shortly stated. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis at Rajnandgaon. The bidi-making industry is not one of the industries specified in Schedule I to the Act. Even so, by a notification No. G. S. R. 346 dated March 17, 1962, issued under Section 1(3)(b) ...
Tag this Judgment!