Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-06-1970
Reported in : AIR1971MP51; 1970MPLJ331
Surajbhan, J. 1. This is a writ petition by the Gwalior Agriculture Company, Limited, Dabra (hereinafter called the Company) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Sinchai (Jal Kar Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam 1964 (Act No. 27 of 1964), (hereinafter called the Act of 1964) for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 10 of the petition, and praying for the issuance of a suitable writ and direction restraining the respondents from recovering the charges and penalty imposed on the petitioner under the aforesaid Act of 1964 and for such incidental reliefs as may be found proper.2. The petitioner is a registered company at Dabra and is engaged in the cultivation of sugar-cane besides other crop. Prior to the merger of the United States of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (i.e. the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat) into the new State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Bharat had passed the Irrigation Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 39 of 1950) (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-29-1970
Reported in : AIR1970MP230; 1970MPLJ253
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. Thispetition arises out of a Motor Vehicles case and has been referred to a Full Bench because of an apparent conflict of views in different Division Benches of this Court on the question whether the State Transport Appellate Authority can remand a case to the Regional Transport Authority for a reconsideration of the matter when evidence is already on record and the State Transport Appellate Authority can dispose of the case on merits.2. The brief facts which have given rise to this writ petition are that the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, advertised for applications for one permit on the Panna-Jabalpur route, 35 operators applied before the Regional Transport Authority. On the 24th June, 1963 the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to Surendra Mohan Chaurasiya, who has filed the present petition, and dismissed the other applications. Out of the operators whose applications had been rejected, 12 persons filed appeals before the State Transport Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-30-1970
Reported in : AIR1971MP104; 1970MPLJ902
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been referred to this Bench in the following circumstances. The respondent brought a suit against the appellants for their ejectment from a non-residential accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was alleged that the monthly rent was Rs. 45/- as agreed between the parties. The defendant paid rent upto March 30, 1965, but did not pay any rent thereafter. The plaintiff served a notice dated December 29, 1965, on the defendants determining the tenancy on January 31, 1966, and to pay arrears of rent, Rs. 540/- from April 1, 1965, to March 31, 1966. This notice was served on defendant No. 2 on December 31, 1965. Since the defendants did not pay arrears of rent within two months of the notice, it was a ground for ejectment. Another ground for ejectment was that the plaintiff needed the suit premises for starting his own business. 2. On June 19, 1966, a writ of summons was served on the defendants. On July 16, 1966, that is, within one mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-30-1970
Reported in : [1970]77ITR990(MP); 1970MPLJ573
Naik, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh,2. The question referred to this court for decision is:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in imposing a penalty on the assessee under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?'3. The facts are in a narrow compass and may shortly be stated as follows :The assessee is an individual. The assessment for the year 1957-58 was originally made on January 17, 1958. Subsequently, during wealth-tax proceedings for the same year, it was found that as per net wealth admitted by the assessee, he had 5991/2 tolas of gold as on March 31, 1957, which was valued at Rs. 45,050. The possession of this gold had at no time previously been disclosed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act for reassessing the alleged escape...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-03-1970
Reported in : AIR1970MP237; 1970MPLJ622
Naik, J.1. The question which has been referred to the Full Bench for decision is whether the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Jagannath v. Harisingh, 1968 Jab LJ 566 = (AIR 1969 Madh Pra 56) and Poonamchand v. Ramprasad, 1968 Jab LJ 583 = (AIR 1969 Madh Pra 44) laid down the correct law. According to the aforesaid decisions, where a suit of a small cause nature is instituted and tried as a regular suit in contravention of the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the judgment so rendered In it is one which is without jurisdiction and nullity.2. The facts giving rise to the reference may shortly be stated as follows!The plaintiff-appellant Tikaram, on 6-5-1965, filed a civil suit in -the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Narsimhapur, inter alia, for the recovery of Rs. 303.45 alleged to be due on account of the balance of unpaid consideration in respect of the sale of the plaintiff's Khasra No. 125, area 9.90 acres, situate in mouza Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-03-1970
Reported in : AIR1971MP191; 1971MPLJ552
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This appeal filed by the seller arises out of a suit by the buyer for the refund of the price in a case of breach of contract on the part of the seller. 2. The facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated. The seller, who is the appellant, is a manufacturer of matches. He entered into a contract dated 9th June 1963, through his selling agent, to sell 600 bundles of 'Jyoti' brand matches. In breach of that contract, the seller despatched by rail 301 bundles of 'Jyoti' brand matches and included 299 bundles of 'Light House' brand matches to make up the consignment of 600 bundles. As this was a contract for sale of goods by description, there was an implied condition that the goods must correspond with the description. The buyer accordingly exercised his option under Section 37(3) of the Sale of Goods Act and refused to take delivery. He was, however, prevailed upon by the agent to retire the Hundi for Rs. 18695.30 and take delivery of the goods, on the promise t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-29-1970
Reported in : AIR1971MP113; 1971MPLJ184
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, filed by the claimant, is directed against an award of the Claims Tribunal. Jabalpur, dated 17th April 1968, seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount.2. The material facts, shortly stated, are as follows. The claim for compensation arose out of an accident involving the death of the claimant's son, Sureshchandra Sohaney, who was a temporary Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (Irrigation), Government of Madhya Pradesh, arising out of the use of the Government jeep --M. P. R. 7045. He was travelling in the jeep along with Shri R. J. Agrawal. Assistant Engineer. P. W. D. Seoni (N. A. W. 1) and the jeep was driven by the driver, Abdul Bashir (N. A. W. 2) They had come to Jabalpur in connection with Government work and had been to the M.P. E.B. office on 25th October. 1964, to reach one Shri Aiyangar. Superintending Engineer, P. W. D., on their way back to Seoni. While the jeep was negotiati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-1970
Reported in : AIR1971MP83; 1971MPLJ74
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the proceedings of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Parsen, District Gwalior, in which a resolution of no confidence was passed by the Gram Panchayat against the petitioner, the Sarpanch of that Panchayat. 2. The petitioner was elected Sarpanch in the year 1964 under the M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962. In the new elections which were held in June and July 1970, he was again elected a Panch and in the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat which was held on August 4, 1970, he was again elected Sarpanch. 3. On August 21, 1970 a few Panchas gave a notice to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat of their desire to move a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. The Secretary then convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of Section 24 of the Act. On September 18, 1970, a meeting was held and the motion of no-confidence was passed by all the 11 members who were present and who voted. 4. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-1970
Reported in : AIR1971MP97; 1971MPLJ50
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the election of a Panch for the Gram Panchayat, Barathara. 2. It is stated in the petition that the last general election of the Panchayat was held on May 23, 1970. Nathuram (respondent No. 4) and Laxminarayan (respondent No. 5) were candidates from ward No. 2. The said Nathuram was declared elected. 3. The petitioner is a voter. His contentions are: (1) The voters list was not prepared as required by the rules, framed under Section 5, of the Election and Co-option Rules, 1963. (2) The voters list became final when it was published in the Gazette dated March 30, 1970, but 8 names were added in the voters list 'after 1-5-70.' In the petition, the significance of that date is not stated but before us it is said that on that date nomination papers were filed and scrutinised. Addition of names after the date of nomination was not permissible under the rules. (3) Nathuram was disqualified inasmuch as he w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-1970
Reported in : AIR1971MP207
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 266 of the Constitution challenging the election of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bhalka, district Gwalior. After the election of the Panchas, a meeting was called for the election of the Sarpanch. That meeting was held on August 5, 1970. Sughar Singh (respondent No. 3) was declared elected. The contention in this petition is that the election is void for various reasons.2. The petitioner's contention is that the meeting to hold the election of the Sarpanch was not called by the competent authority. Relying on Sections 29 and 30 of the Panchayats Act and the rules made thereunder it is contended that every meeting of the Gram Panchayat must be called by the Sarpanch and since the meeting for the election of the Sarpanch under Section 21 of the Act is a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, it must be called by the Sarpanch. This contention must be rejected. Sections 29 and 30 are general provisions for meetings of Gram Panchayat and the ...
Tag this Judgment!