Madhya Pradesh Court April 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State Vs. Anandilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ251
Chaturvedi, J.1. A common point of law arises in all these revisions under the Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act No. 3 of 1948), All these revisions, therefore, will be disposed of by this judgment,2. The opponents were prosecuted for violation of the terms of their licences which were issued by the Regional Controller as licensing authority authorised in this behalf by the Director of Civil Supplies by an order notified in the State Gazette, It is the validity of this order that was questioned by the Courts below and in this revision we have to consider how far their objection that the order issued by the Director, Civil Supplies, was unauthorised, is valid.We have to consider the said order as a link in the chain connected with Sections 4 and 5 of the Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act and certain notifications passed under Section 5 of the said Act.3. Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act deals with t...
Abdulla Khan Vs. Smt. Chandni Bi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1956
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1395
ORDERMathur, J.C.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C. by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, with the recommendation that the order dated 20-11-1954 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhopal, ordering Abdulla Khan to pay Rs. 15/- per month as maintenance to his first wife Sm. Chandni Bi, be set aside. Both Sm. Chandni Bi and Abdulla Khan are absent and the case was taken up with the assistance of the Government Advocate.2. Sm. Chandni Bi had moved an application under Section 488, Criminal P.C., on the ground that her husband Abdulla Khan had sent her away to the house of her father after beating her and did not maintain her for the three years prior to the moving of the application. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month.Abdulla Khan opposed the application and blamed his father-in-law for not sending his daughter. He also said that he remarried when his first wife was not sent back.3. The learned Magistrate allowed the application of the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›