Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ660
ORDERTribeni Saran, Addl. J.C.1. This order disposes of two petitions made by Govind Prasad Shrivastava and Balkrishan Gupta for the issue of the writs of Habeas Corpus under Article 226, Constitution of India. The applicants were arrested and detained by means of warrants issued by the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal, under the Preventive Detention Act 1950.2. The preliminary objection raised by the Government advocate relates to the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the applications. His argument is that Article 226 is only meant to lay down the powers which the High Courts could exercise, only if they possessed those powers; in other words, if a High Court does not already possess the powers specified in Article 226 of the Constitution, the aforesaid Article does not empower it to exercise them and there is no remedy for the applicants except to go to the Supreme Court under Article 32(1) for the enforcement of fundamental right.3. The learned Government Advocate has cited Anant B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1305
Kaul, C.J.1. This is an application purporting; to be made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant Dayabhai Poonambhai Patel is a resident of Barwani. Prior to its integration with Madhya Bharat Barwani was an independent State governed by its Ruler styled His Highness the Maharana of Barwani. According to the applicant by an agreement dated 30-11-1947 His Highness the Maharana granted to him for the value of a consideration, a monopoly (sole right) for transport of passengers by motor buses within the State. One of the terms of the agreement was that no other buses or taxies except chose of the applicant would be allowed to ply on hire within (the State territory. That on 29-6-1948 the State of Barwani was merged in & became a part of the union of Madhya Bharat. This was effected in pursuance of a Covenant entered into on 22-4-1948 between the Ruler of Barwani & the Rulers of a number of other States in Central India This had the sanction of the then Govt. of India. The U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP103
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench :'Can a writ of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution be issued to bind the Central Government in a case in which' under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 the Central Government has declined to review an order passed by the State Government?'2. The reference came to be made under the following circumstances. The appellant Seth Surajmal applied for a mining lease in respect of 20.45 acres in village Botejhari, tahsil Waraseoni, district Balaghat. The application of Seth Surajmal was dismissed by the State Government and the State Government's decision was communicated to Seth Surajmal by the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, in memorandum No. 1381-7438-7-kh dated 27-12-1954 under endorsement No. K. Kh. Li. dated 19th January 1955. I reproduce the memorandum here:'20.45 acres. area thrown open vide notification in C. P Gazette part 3, page 8,dated 7-1-55. Application to be rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP397
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other kind of writ, direction or order against the State of Madhya Pradesh for securing the quashing of the order dated 7-12-1957 passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh superseding the Municipality of Ujjain in purported exercise of its powers under Section 208 of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954.2. The petitioner claims to be an elected President of the aforesaid Municipality and has submitted this petition both as a duly elected member and the President of the Municipality thus superseded.3. The action of supersession taken by the Government was the out-come of the following circumstances:4. Some time prior to June 1957 Government received complaints regarding the working of the said Municipality. In order to get itself informed about me propriety of these complaints and to know the truth about the matter the Government appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP380; 1958CriLJ1402
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. This judgment covers three proceedings, namely death reference No. 3 of 1957 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Shajapur, Appeal No. 69 of 1957 by the condemned man Ramlal Singh, and Appeal No. 83 of 1957 by five others who were sentenced under different sections to be presently set out. The Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the six accused thus; Ramlal s/o Devi Singh under Section 302 read with section 149 I. P. C., for the murder of Fateh Singh and Jagannath Singh and sentenced him to be hanged by the neck until he is dead; the remaining five persons, Karan Singh son of Devi Singh, Ghisa Singh son of Devi Singh. Amar Singh, Hari Singh sons of Karan Singh, and Pooriyawas son of Prithvi Singh, who is a servant, halwaha of the family, have all been convicted under Section 302 read with section 149 I. P. C., and sentenced to life imprisonment.His reason for awarding the lesser sentence is the youth of Hari Singh and Amar Singh; and the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP305
Naik, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff, a joint Hindu family firm, whose suit for damages, amounting to Rs. 11,301-3-6, for the lass suffered by it on account of late delivery of goods as also their deli-very in a deteriorated condition has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Balaghat, on the sole ground that the notices served by it on the respondent railway companies under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not legal and valid for the purposes. of the claim in suit.2. Seth Samrathmal and Seth Ratanchand are real brothers and they constitute the plaintiff joint Hindu family firm which is carrying on business at Balaghat under the name and style of 'Firm Dhanraj Samrathmal, Balaghat'.3. On 3-3-1950, one Maganlal Sualal booked a consignment of 123 bags of chillies, weighing 85 maunds, at Mandsaur, a railway station on what is now known as the Western Railway (then known as the Bombay Baroda and Central ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP129
Shrivastava, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the right of the State Government to recover certain amounts from him as arrears of land revenue.2. The facts leading to the petition arc as follows. As a result of auction, the petitioner was granted a licence to distil liquor in Kawardha in 1953 and 1954. The amount which the petitioner had to pay to the State Government was Rs. 18,100/-and Rs. 27,000/- respectively for the two years. At the time of the first auction, the State Government had intimated to the bidders that a surcharge or 7 1/2 per cent over the amount of the bid would be charged to all outstill contractors for the privilege to remove fuel and mahua from the Government forest.At the time of the second auction also, a similar condition was announced. Accordingly, the State Government sought to recover Rs. 1357-8-0 for the first year and Rs. 2032-8-0 for the second year from the petitioner. Respondents 2 to 4, who are respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP183
Shrivastava, J.1. This order shall also dispose of the connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 31, 34 and 39, all of 1957. All these appeals are directed against the order of Choudhuri J. refusing to interfere with the removal of the petitioners from service.2. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are Class IV employees of the railway administration and were appointed by the Superintendent, Watch and Ward Department, Chakradharpur. In the year 1955, this department was given the name of Security Force, and the Chief Security Officer was declared its head. Rules governing the conditions of service of the Security Force were made by the President purporting to act under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under these rules, the Assistant Security Officer was designated as the appointing and dismissing authority of Class IV servants in the Security Force. All the petitioners were removed from service by the Assistant Security Officer acting under the powers conferred by these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP37
Shrivastava, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by the petitioner Sheo Kumar against the order of Sen J, dismissing his petition (Misc. Petition No. 29 o 1957) in motion hearing on 5-2-1957.2. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 Jagan-nath Prasad were Panchas of the Gram Panchayat of mouza Ghutku, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. A meeting was held on 7-1-1957 for electing a Sar-panch. It was presided over by Jhagruram (respondent No. 3). The petitioner and Jagannath Prasad (respondent No. 5) were candidates for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner objected to the nomination of Jagannath Prasad on the ground that he was in arrears of taxes payable to the Gram Panchayat for one year and was not, therefore, duly qualified for contesting the elections. The objection was rejected by respondent No. 3, who as stated above, presided over the meeting. After the election. Jagannath Prasad (respondent No. 5) was declared duly elected. In the petition it was also stated that the electi...
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!