Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-16-1973
Reported in : AIR1974MP141; 1974MPLJ257
Tare, C.J.1. This opinion shall govern the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal as also the Second Appeal No 91 of 1966 -- (Durgaprasad v. Chunnilal).2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been referred to this Court for decision of the entire appeal by a Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 31-3-1971, as also for decision of the question whether a Bhumiswami under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is a tenure holder within the meaning of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956. That question is also involved in Second Appeal No. 91 of 1966 (Madh Pra). Therefore, by this opinion, we propose to decide that question and later on, we propose to decide the Letters Patent Appeal on merits. On expression of the opinion on the question referred Second Appeal No. 91 of 1966, will have to so back to the Single Bench for decision on merits in accordance with the opinion of this Full Bench. Along with these two cases. Second Appeal No. 447 of 1966 (Madh Pra) -- (Smt. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-03-1973
Reported in : AIR1975MP85
Raina, J.1. In Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 7 of 1972 a question arose whether a temporary injunction can be issued to restrain a decree-holder from executing his decree against his judgment-debtor. Shiv Dayal, J. who heard the appeal referred the following points for decision by the Division Bench on account of divergent views having been expressed by this Court in different cases:--(1) Whether in a suit instituted by a judgment-debtor on the ground of fraud or any such other ground, a temporary injunction can be granted restraining the decree-holder from executing his decree against the plaintiff.(2) When a suit is instituted on the ground that the decree is not binding on the plaintiff and that the execution of the decree will be prejudicial to the plaintiff's right, by a person, who was not a party to the suit in which the decree was passed, can a temporary injunction be issued to restrain the decree-holder from executing his decree against his judgment-debtor.2. Shiv Dayal, J....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-27-1973
Reported in : AIR1975MP71
Sen, J.1. This is a petition by Shri L.N. Trivedi, under Article 226 of the Constitution, directed against an order of the State Government dated the 25th June, 1970, for his removal as a councillor of the Municipal Council, Mahidpur, under the provisions of Section 41 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.2. Shortly stated, the facts are these: The petitioner is an Advocate of this Court, practising at Mahidpur. He was appearing as counsel against the Municipal Council in a suit wherein the plaintiff had claimed the relief of perpetual injunction against the Council. That suit was eventually decreed and the petitioner, as counsel, had put the decree into execution. He was elected as a councillor in December, 1968. Despite his election as councillor, he continued to appear as a counsel for the decree-holder in the execution proceedings. These proceedings were taken by the decree-holder under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Meanwhile the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1973
Reported in : AIR1973MP209; 1973MPLJ451
Raina, J.1. This a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution 2. The petitioner is a passenger transport operator and had applied for a stage carriage permit for Mandla-Dindori route in lieu of permit No. 19/61 of National Transport Service Co-operative Society, Limited, Jabalpur. The permit was valid up to 19-4-1970. On 25-2-1970 the petitioner filed an application for grant of stage carriage permit for the Mandla-Dindori route in lieu of renewal of the permit. Three more applications were submitted by the following operators for grant of stage carriage permit for the said route.Name of the applicantsDate of application(i) Jabalpur Transport Development Co Jabalpur.3-3-1970(ii)Dalbir Singh s/o Tara Singh Jabalpur.4-3-1970(iii) Gourishanker Rawat5-3-19703. The application of the petitioner along with the above 3 applications was published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 10-4-1970 in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-18-1973
Reported in : AIR1974MP101; 1974MPLJ95
Tare. C.J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an excise contractor Challenging the order, dated 22-12-1970 (Petitioner's Annexure P/1), passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Excise, Gwalior, and Recovery Officer, issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 4,905/- should not be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue towards the loss suffered by the Government in re-auctioning the licence for a liquor shop.2. The case had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by one of us (namely, Raina, J. and Dwivedi, J.), which by order, dated 22-3-1972 referred the entire case for decision by a Full Bench, as Interpretation of Article 299 of the Constitution of India was involved, on which different opinions have been expressed in some cases. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the entire case as no particular question has been referred to us by the Division Bench for our opinion.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-05-1973
Reported in : AIR1974MP44; 1974MPLJ160
Tare, C.J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 159 of 1971 (The M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, through its General Manager. Bairagarh, Bhopal v. 1 State Transport Authority. Gwalior, and 2-M/s. Pahlairai Naraindas). Misc. Petition No. 307 of 1972 M/S (Pahlairai Naraindas v. Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority. Gwailor and M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, through its General Manager. Bairagarh, Bhopal) and Misc. Petition No. 403 of 1967 -- (M/S. Prahlad Rai Naraindas v. State Transport Appellate Authority, M. P., Gwalior and three others).2. The facts leading to the filing of the Present petitions are as follows: In pursuance of an approved scheme for an inter-State nationalised route, there was a reciprocal agreement, entered into between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for six trips on Mirjapur-Rewa via Hanumana route, which are to be operated by the nominees of the States of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Prio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-08-1973
Reported in : AIR1974MP59; 1974MPLJ1
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This case was referred to this Full Bench for two reasons: (1) The vires of Section 91 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, was in doubt, and (2) the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Premnarain v. Shilpakar Sahakari Mazdoor Sangh Ltd. 1971 Jab LJ 924, was in doubt. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to quash certain orders passed by the State Government effecting supersession or continuation of supersession of the Committee of petitioner No. 1 Collective Farming Society, Ltd,. Lilakheri (hereinater called the petitioner-society) and to direct the respondents by a writ of mandamus to handover charge of the society to the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who claim to be duly elected President. Secretary and Treasurer of the petitioner-society. 3. Facts material for the questions, which have been raised before us may be briefly stated thus: (i) The petitioner-society is a registered co-operative society of culti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-12-1973
Reported in : [1975]100ITR258(MP); 1973MPLJ996
Sen, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Cases Nos. 587 and 588 of 1971 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ratanchand Darbarilal).2. This is a reference under Section 66(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the revenue, and it pertains to the registration of the firm, M/s. Ratanchand Darbarilal of Satna, under Section 26A of the Act.3. The relevant assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding previous year of which was that ending on 28th August, 1957.4. The facts, shortly stated, are few and simple. A Hindu undivided family consisting of one Murlidhar and his two sons, Ratanchand and Darbarilal, of which Murlidhar was the karta, carried on cloth business at Katni. On 1st March, 1943, there was a partition of the joint Hindu family, as a result of which the two branches of Ratanchand and Darbarilal separated from eich other. On disruption, the joint family business was converted into a partnership business. Dhanyakumar representing the branc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-22-1973
Reported in : AIR1973MP104; 1973MPLJ411
Verma, J.1. This whole case has been referred to this Full Bench for decision in view of the fact that on the main question for decision heroin, there appears to be a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court. The correctness of the construction made of the expression 'current charge of the duties of a post' by a Division Bench of this Court in Rampratap v. State of M. P., 1964 MPLJ 86 = (AIR 1964 Madh Pra 114) was doubled by another Division Bench in State of M. P. v. Gokul Prasad, 1971 MPLJ 609 = (1971 Lab IC 896). Hence this reference.2. The petitioner, as a voter, has challenged the election of respondent No. 2 as President and of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as Vice-Presidents of the Municipal Council, Itarsi, at a meeting held for the purpose on 10-7-1971. This council was constituted after the general elections in April 1969 and the impugned elections were for these offices after expiry of the terms of their first incumbents. The notice (Annexure 'G') convening the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-14-1973
Reported in : AIR1973MP255; 1973MPLJ697
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order to quash cancellation of the petitioner's four licences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and for restoration of the petitioner's stock seized by the Collector.2. The petitioner held four licences in Forms 21, 21-B, 20 and 20-B (that is, to sell, stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute by retail drugs specified in Schedules C and C (1), and also drugs other than those specified in Schedules C and C (1) respectively) under Rules 61 (1) and 61 (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, (hereinafter called the Rules) framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (hereinafter called the Act). These licences were subject to the conditions enumerated in them.3. Section 18 of the Act prohibits sale, etc., of any drug or cosmetic, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence issued for such purpose by the licensing authority. Under Rule 59 of the said Rules, the Collector is th...
Tag this Judgment!