REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant

V/S

MULAMCHAND Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BINDESWARI V. BAGESHWARI [REFERRED TO]
FIRM KANHAIYALAL SOMANI V. PARAMSUKH [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL GOENKA VS. BENOY KISHNA MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
FIRM CHHOTABHAI JETHABAI PATEL AND CO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GHATTURBHUJ VITHALDAS JASANI VS. MORESHWAR PARASHRAM [REFERRED TO]
S P NARAYANAN CHETTIAR VS. M AR ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEO SETH BANSIDHAR AMARSIBHAI SAMBASHIV FIRM HABIB AHMED BROTHERS HIRJIBHAI FIRM S PRATAP AND COMPANY KUMAR S PRATAP SINGH AND COMPANY R M CHANDRAPAL SINGH RANA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER EAST CHANDA [REFERRED TO]
SATYADHYAN GHOSAL VS. DEORAJIN DEBI [REFERRED TO]
BHIKRAJ JAIPURIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD IN ALL AAPEALS VS. BANGALORE WOOLLEN COTTON AND SILK MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GULABCHAND CHHOTALAL PARIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
K P CHOWDHRY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHIMAN KHAN VS. SADA SHIV TRIPATHI [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL VS. DOSSIBAI N B JEEJEEBHOYF [REFERRED TO]
BHAVANARAYANASWAMIVARI TEMPLE VS. VADAPALLI VENK ATA BHAVANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
HIS DAVECOS GARMENTS FACTORY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MURARI LAL LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. N K PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEVI VS. CHATURVEDI [REFERRED TO]
MIDNAPUR ZAMINDARI COMPANY LIMITED VS. NARESH NARAYAN ROY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the defendant-State has challenged the decision of the trial court on the question of res judicata.

(2.) ON October 6, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, sold by public auction to the plaintiff the right to propagate and collect lac in some of the forests of balaghat district. The plaintiff purchased the said right in different Patwari circles. The total amount payable by the plaintiff was Rs. 69,500/ -. The plaintiff merely paid Rs. 500/- on October 6, 1951, and another sum of Rs. 5000/- on October 6, 1951 and another sum of Rs. 5000/-on November 29, 1951. For the balance of rs. 59,000/- the Tahsildar Balaghat, started recovery proceedings. In the course of those proceedings, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. Thus, the balance outstanding against the plaintiff was Rs. 58,000/ -.

(3.) THE plaintiff challenged those recovery proceedings by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by a learned Judge sitting singly (Misc. Petn. No. 197 of 1956 ). The petitioner (now plaintiff) preferred a letters Patent Appeal (No. 117 of 1956) which was decided by a Division Bench on may 6, 1959. That decision is reported in 1960 MPLJ 195 = (AIR 1960 Madh Pra 152 ). Two points were raised before the Division Bench-

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MULAMCHAND

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address