Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Court:Madhya Pradesh Page:8

Jul 23 1958

Ghasiram Vs. Shankarlal and Ors.

  • Decided on : 23-Jul-1958

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1960MP3

P.V. Dixit, J.1. This appeal from a judgment of the District Judge of Dhar, which reversed a judgment of the Munsiff, Dhar, raises the question whether the plaintiff-respondents Shankarlal and Ramkishan, who purchased a house in pursuance of a decree for specific performance of an oral contract to sell the house, concluded between them and Bondar and Chhetar, the owners of the house, are bound by certain mortgages created by the owners in favour of the appellant after the contract to sell.2. The material facts are that on 27th December 1927 Bondar and Chheetar entered into an agreement with Shankarlal and Ramkishan for the sale of the house to them for Rs. 3500/-. It was agreed between (he parties that out of this consideration Rs. 1100/- would be paid immediately and the remaining amount of Rs. 2400/- would be paid by the purchaser directly to Nathuji, Bhagirath and Ghasiram who had taken earlier two mortgages of the property, one of them executed by Mulchand the father of Bondar and Cheetar, on 24th November 1913 for Rs. 2000/- and the other executed by Bondar and Cheetar on 23rd December 1918 for Rs. 400/-.After the aforesaid agreement to sell was concluded, proceedings were initiated in the Court of the Munsiff of Dhar by Bondar and Cheetar under the prevailing law in the former Dhar State for registration of a sale-deed in favour of Shankarlal and Ramkishan. These proceedings proved to be abortive as for some reason or another Bondar and Cheetar declined to perform, the ...

Mar 03 1960

Hajijiwakhan Vs. Gulabchand Harakchand and Anr.

  • Decided on : 03-Mar-1960

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1961MP2

ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in a small cause suit from the order of the Small Cause Court. Indore setting aside an ex parte decree granted in his favour on an application by the defendant under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is urged that the order is not in accordance with law, on the following grounds (i) that the cause shown by the defendant should not have been considered sufficient; (ii) that security was accepted in lieu of cash deposit without a direction tothat effect on a prior application, thus contravening the condition in the proviso to Section 17(iii) that the security bond which purports to create a charge on the immovable property of the surety is invalid for want of registration.2. Ground No. (i):-- The defendant comes from a distance and he alleges that owing to an unforeseen accident, the bus that brought him to Indore, was late; having arrived sometime after the case was called out and disposed of ex parte against him, he filed an application in the Court for leave to give security for the purpose of getting the ex parte decree set aside. This cause has been accepted as sufficient by the Small Cause Court. This is purely a factual matter and cannot be agitated in a revision application. I also note that this ground has not been taken in the revision application.3. Ground No. (ii):-- The judgment-debtor did apply on 18-10-1955 (which incidentally was the date of the ex parte decree itself), ...

Nov 27 1959

Umraolal Subalal, a partnership firm of Bhind Vs. State of M.P. and Or ...

  • Decided on : 27-Nov-1959

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1962MP2; [1960]11STC337(MP)

Naik, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ or direction to the respondents not to charge sales tax on 'bura sugar imported by it into Madhya Bharat, on the ground that the law imposing such a tax is discriminatory, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of sugar, bura and other goods, in Bhind, which was formerly in Madhya Bharat. It was also a licensee under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950 (No. 30 of 1950). For its business of selling 'bura sugar', it imported 'bura sugar' from places outside Madhya Bharat into Bhind and sold it to various consumers in Bhind. The sales tax authorities, Madhya Bharat, are claiming sales tax on the sales of imported 'bura sugar' made by it in Bhind during the period 1956-57, under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act (No. 30 of 1950).3. The relevant entry under which the sales tax is being charged is contained in item 31 of Schedule III of the Act. That item reads as follows.uke oLrqe/;Hkkjr esa fo; dh ogfLFkfr ftlij dj ns; gS31 leLr izdkj dk 'kDdj e?;Hkkjr esa vk;kr dh gqbZ ;k e/;Hkkjr esa fufeZr 'kDdj ls cuk;s x;s cwjs dksNksM+djvk;kr drkZ ;k fuekZrk }kjkfo;It would thus be seen that under the Act, imported 'bura sugar' would be liable to sales tax, but the 'bura sugar' made from sugar imported or manufactured in Madhya Bharat would be exempted from the tax.4. This law was clearly discriminatory. Under Article 304(a) of the ...

May 03 1962

Tulsa W/o Pannalal Koli Vs. Pannalal Natha Koli and Anr.

  • Decided on : 03-May-1962

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1963MP5; 1962MPLJ987

Shiv Dayal, J.1.This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act from a decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed in favour of the husband.2. In his petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Pannalal alleged that he was married to Tulsa in or about 1953. She gave birth to a daughter in 1957, but the girl did not survive for more than two days. Tulsa's father took herto his house for Diwali festival but thereafter she did not return.3. Tulsa resisted the petition on the groundthat in fact the plaintiff deserted her and he treated, her with cruelty.4. The learned Additional District Judge Gwalior, who tried the petition found that the plaintiff did not desert her nor did he treat her with cruelty. In the result he passed a decree in favour of the husband.5. Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, invites our attention to Pannalal's stater ment. There he says that one day she requested him to escort her to her father's house and gave him to understand that she would return, with, him in the evening on the same day. He, therefore, left her at her father's house in the morning, but when he went the second time, in the evening,, to fetch her back, her parents started quarrelling with, him and Tulsa also abused him, whereupon, he returned to his house alone. This is contrary to what he said in the petition. And the suppression, of the fact that it was he who left her to her father's house is not without significance.6. Furthermore, the ...

Aug 08 1963

Sheelchand and Co. Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority and Anr.

  • Decided on : 08-Aug-1963

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1964MP8; 1964MPLJ311

Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern Miscellaneous Petition No. 95 of 1963.2. The petitioner Sheelchand and Co.'s application for the grant of a stage carriage permit for Shujalpur-Bhopal route was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal. It was, however, granted in . appeal by the' State Transport Appellate Authority. While granting the permit applied for, the Appellate Authority made it conditional on the petitioner putting up a bus of 1962 model on the route. The other petitioner Suganchand Sheelchand and Company's application for the grant of a stage carriage permit for Sironj-Bhopal route was also similarly granted by the State Transport Appellate Authority and on the same condition. Both the petitioners now challenge the validity of the conditions attached to their permits, and pray for the issue of writs of certiorari for quashing them.3. It was argued by Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that each of the petitioners had been granted 'P. St. S.' permit and not 'P. St. P.' permit; that while on a 'P. St. P.' permit, in relation to a particular stage carriage a condition of the year of manufacture of the vehicle could be imposed, no such condition could be attached to a 'P.St.S.' permit which entitled the holder of the permit, to use any of his vehicles without any qualification and that the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority while granting the permits was not any of the conditions enumerated in Clauses (i) to (xxii) ...

Feb 22 1964

Murti Shri Thakur Chaturbhujji Maharaj Birajman Mandir and Anr. Vs. Pu ...

  • Decided on : 22-Feb-1964

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1965MP3; 1964MPLJ843

Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit for a declaration that the properties described in paras 3 and 7 of the plaint belong to the plaintiff No. 1, namely the idol of Shri Chaturbhuj; that defendant had no personal right to or interest in the suit property, that the defendant-respondent No. 1 was a mere pujari of the plaintiff idol and in the capacity of a pujari was bound to work under the control of the plaintiff No. 2 Shri Rao Chaturbhuj, and the remaining defendants.2. The defendant No. 1 objected inter alia that the suit was unmaintainable on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This contention was upheld by the trial Court.3. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiffs alleged in paragraph 9 of the plaint that the defendant No. 1 was asserting his own right to the property described in paras 3 and 7 of the plaint. In para 15 the first two reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs relate only to a declaration of the title of plaintiff No. 1 to the property mentioned in paras 3 and 7 of the plaint, and the fact that the defendant No. 1 had no personal right to or interest in the same. To this extent we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs' suit was not at all governed by the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Kalimata Thakurani v. Jibandhan Mukherjee, AIR 1962 SC 1329, that in a suit for ...

Apr 28 1966

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmichand Muchhal

  • Decided on : 28-Apr-1966

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : [1966]36CompCas610(MP); [1966]61ITR555(MP)

Dixit, C.J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the question which has been referred to this court for decision is:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit along with interest of Rs. 33,784 and commission of Rs. 19,179 included in the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 28,93,802 and Rs. 9,31,000 could be said to have been received by the bank on behalf of the assessee in British India so as to attract levy of tax under Section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'2. The dispute in this reference relates to the assessment year 1949-50, the relevant previous year of which ended on 1st November, 1948. During the relevant previous year, the assessee-firm, M/s. Laxmichand Muchhal, Indore, carried on business at Indore and Ujjain in the sale and export of cloth. These two places were then in non-taxable territory. In that year, there was an all India control over the disposal of cloth. Under the All India Cloth Distribution Scheme, which was then in force, the assessee-firm was appointed as nominee for the United Provinces and certain districts of Punjab for supply of cloth from particular mills in Indore and Ujjain according to the allocations made by the competent Textile Commissioner. When the assessee received allotment orders for supply of cloth to United Provinces and certain districts of Punjab from mills in Indore and Ujjain, it took delivery of ...

Sep 12 1963

Bhikibai Vs. Mangtibai and Anr.

  • Decided on : 12-Sep-1963

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1967MP3

ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 58 of 1968 and Civil Revl-lion No. 526 of 1962. Material facts are as follows. 2. A decree for possession of land was passed jointly in favour of two widows Bhiklbai and Mangatibai in Civil Suit No. 182 of 1969 at the stage of first appeal on 12-2-1962 against the defendant Gaila. Bhiklbai alone thereupon filed an execution application for enforcement of the decree against Galla. The decree, it is said, was satisfied by delivery of possession of the property on 18-3-1962 to Bhikibai alone. Five days before this on 13-3-1962 Mangatibai had applied stating that she had obtained possession from Gaila out of Court and that satisfaction might be entered on the decree. The learned Civil Judge thereupon discovered that the decree had not been executed as per its terms and as ordered by him. He thereupon directed fresh warrant to be issued for delivery of possession to both the widows 3. Bhikibai preferred appeal against that order in the Court of Additional District Judge West Nimar Khargone She also filed this revision petition, it is said, by wav of abundant caution during the pendency of the appeal but more than 45 days after the order sought to be revised When the matter came up for hearing before Sen. J.. the learned Judge thought that if was proper to hear the proceeding along with that of appeal. 4. As regards the revision petition ii is clearly untenable. It is in the first place filed without due ...

Feb 21 1967

Kadorilal and Anr. Vs. Sukhlal Sajan Singh

  • Decided on : 21-Feb-1967

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1968MP4

ORDER1. This revision petition came up for hearing before our learned brother Newaskar, J., who was of the opinion that an important question of law was involved and that the revision should be placed before a larger Bench to be nominated by the Honourable the Chief Justice. Accordingly, this case has been placed before us for disposal. 2. The applicants are plaintiffs. They filed a suit, out of which this revision arises, for recovery of certain amount on the basis of two documents, styled as promissory notes. The document dated 19th June 1964 (Ex P-2) is not sufficiently stamped as a promissory note. The non-applicant, therefore, objected to its admission in evidence. The trial Court held that it was a promissory note and being insufficiently stamped was inadmissible in evidence. The applicant's contention was that it was a bond, as It was attested by witnesses and that it could be validated on payment of penalty, and that the trial Court was wrong in holding the document Inadmissible. Hence this revision. 3. The document in question is on a printed form and reads thus: xzkehljh uksVge lq[kyky oYn lqtku flag dkSe nkxh lkfduflEjkgja bdjkj djrs gS fd ekaxus ij dkMksjhyky vUnhyky tSu] ofn'kk dks ;k ftldsuke ;g uksV gksxk mls :i;s OO :O% vadu pkj lkS flQZ nsaxsA vkSj vkt rkjh[kls bu :i;ksa ij C;kt nj ekg nj lSadMk ckjg vkus izek.ks fgUnh ferh ls bu :i;ksaij nsaxs bu :i;ksa dk eqvkotk gedks fey pqdk gSAferh tSB lquh yEcr 2O2 rkO.&'&' lu .' dkxj ferh dqokj onh O :i;s pqdrk ...

Apr 23 1968

Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Krishna Mohanath Raina and Ors.

  • Decided on : 23-Apr-1968

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1969MP4; 1968MPLJ545

Shrivastava, J.1. The Sanskrit Pustakonnati Sabha, Itawah (respondent 1-B) through its seven trustees (respondents 1-A (1) to 1-A (7) and the Temple of Shri Mahasaraswatiji, Itawah (respondent 2), hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, brought Civil Suit No. 25-A of 1961, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, for possession of properties detailed in Schedules A and B attached to the plaint, against the appellant Rameshwar Prasad. The trial Court impleaded one Ram Dulare as defendant 2 in the case on an application made by him on 11-7-1963. The suit was decreed with respect to only part of the properties claimed against Rameshwar Prasad. He has, therefore, filed this appeal. Ram Dulare, defendant 2, also has been impleaded in the appeal as respondent 4.2. It is no longer in dispute that the property in suit belonged to one Bal Govind who died, leaving behind two sons Sitaram and Raghuvar Dayal, Sitaram died on 27-7-1920, leaving his widow Dulari Bai as his only heir. Raghuvar Dayal died on 11-6-1923, leaving behind his widow Shahzadi Bai. Both these widows continued in possession of the properties. Shahzadi Bai died on 12-8-1955 and Dulari Bai died on 30-1-1960,3. The case of the plaintiffs was that Raghuvar Dayal executed a will on 31-5-1923 by which he bequeathed the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs, subject to the life interest of the two widows Shahzadi Bai and Dulari Bai. They are, therefore, entitled to possession of the properties ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //