Madhya Pradesh Court April 1958 Judgments
iqrar Ahmed Vs. Hulkey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP319
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. This revision arises out o a Small Cause Suit. The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 208/10/6 as arrears of rent on the basis, of a rent-note executed by the defendant on 19-11-54 and exhibited as Ex. P. .1. 2. It appears that the house, about the rent of which this suit was filed, belonged to the defendant., who had mortgaged it to the plaintiff and thereafter taken a lease of the same from the plaintiff. The suit was resisted on the ground that since it is a claim arising out of a mortgage-deed and the rent is by way of interest on the mortgage, therefore the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction. This contention was rejected by the trial Court. The Court instead of passing a decree for the rent claimed, calculated interest on the mortgaged-money at 6 per cent, and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 46-2-6 only. Against this decision, the plaintiff has filed this revision. 2. Two questions arise for consideration; One, whether the plaintiff can bri...
Tag this Judgment!Netram Vs. Lakshman Prasad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1960MP368
Sen, J. 1. This appeal and First Appeal No. 18 of 1959 raise common questions for decision. This order shall accordingly dispose of both the appeals. 2. These are appeals under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein after called the Act), from the orders of the Election Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, dismissing the election petitions filed by the appellants for declaring the election of the respondents to the Section Legislative Assembly to be void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The present appellant claimed to be an elector on the roll of the Bemetara Constituency. His status as an elector was denied by the respondents before the Tribunal, but was not contested before us. During the last general elections to the State Legislative Assembly, respondent No. 1 was a candidate for the general seat and respondent No. 2, for the reserved seat, of the Bemetara Constituency. One Dhansingh had filed three nomination papers for the general seat of that Constituency, b...
Tag this Judgment!inayatullah Khan Vs. Diwanchand Mahajan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP58
M. Hidayatullah, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of an election in the Sehore double-member constituency to the Legisla-tive Assembly of this State. The election took place on 25th February, 1957 and the results were declared on 1st March, 1957. Originally, six persons had offered to contest the two seats, but one of them (Amarchand) withdrew, leaving five in the field. Of these Umraosingh and Mannulal contested the reserved seat, while the remaining three, Inayatullah, Mahajan, and Nandlal contested the general seat. As a result of the poll declared on 1st March, the appellant Inayatullah was declared elected to the general seat while Umraosingh was also declared elected to the reserved seat. The result of the poll was as follows : Umraosingh 23,757Votes(Reserved) Inapatullah 20,696,,(General) C. Mahajan 20,616,,(General) Mannulal 16,599'(Reserved Nandlal 8,997,,(General)) 2. The election was questioned by Diwan-chand Mahajan alone. One of the other candidates Mannulal in his reply rai...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjilal and ors. Vs. Municipal Committee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP82
1. This second appeal is from concurring decrees in the two Courts below, dismissing the suit of the appellants for an injunction against the levy by the Municipal Committee, Piparia, of an octroi tax which, it is contended, was illegally imposed. The two Courts below held that the impost was valid and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal.2. There existed in the Piparia Municipality a terminal tax from the year 1916. On 5-2-1949, the Committee resolved to impose octroi tax. On 17-3-1949, the Committee adopted the rules regulating assessment, collection and refund of octroi tax and the draft rules were published in the Gazette on 28-4-1949 as required by Section 67(2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act).The Committee adopted the final proposals on 27-7-1949 and forwarded them to the Provincial Government as required by Section 67(4) of the Act. The rules for the assessment, collection and refund of octroi tax, as finally adopted by the Co...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Gulab Jhunna Sansi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP318; 1958CriLJ1317
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. The facts out of which this reference arises are that the non-applicants (Gulab son of Jhunna, Halker son of Girdhari and, Onkar son of Langra Sansi) were produced before the Magistrate, First Class Biora under Sections 457 and 380, I. P, C,. for remand. The remand was granted but when the Police did not produce the case-diary, the Magistrate Biora admitted the accused to bail. Later on, because the Police did not put up the Challan for quite a long time, the Magistrate at Biora eventually released the accused on 24-7-57. Thereafter on 23-8-57, the Police filed a Challan against Jangalia and also against Gulab, Halker and Onkar, who were already released on 24-7-57. The learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the case against Jangalia, refused to proceed against Gulab, Halker and Onkar, on the ground that he had already released these persons on 24-7-57. Against this order, a revision was filed before the Additional District Magistrate, Rajgarh, who has sen...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shanker Surajmal and ors. Vs. Moolchand Pannalal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP415
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff directed against the concurrent judgments of the lower Courts, passing a decree for the price against defendant No. 3 Vendor, and refusing to pass any decree against defendants 1 and 2, who as Arhtias keeping the goods on his behalf, still refused to deliver them to the plaintiff in accordance with the delivery order from the vendor. The questions for decision are whether the delivery order given by defendant No. 3 to the purchaser-appellant made him the owner of the goods, and as such competent to bring a suit in tort (action detinue or conversion) against defendants 1 and 2. Secondly, whether on the materials available we can hold that the goods were worth on the date of refusal of delivery, anything more than what the plaintiff had paid to the vendor (defendant 3).2. The facts as found by the lower Courts are the following. The plaintiffs originally, both father and son but now the latter alone surviving, had lent money to Rustu...
Tag this Judgment!Maursinha Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1958
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!K.L. Chaturvedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1958
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1614
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. This petition under Article 228 of the Constitution is founded on the contention T that the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, was unconstitutional and void, as it unreasonably restricted the fundamental right of the petitioner to manufacture and sell his patent' and proprietary medicine, 'Germs Killer' without disclosing on the carton or label of the drugs Its true formula Or list of ingredients.2. The relevant facts may shortly be stated as follows: The petitioner is the manufacturer of a medicinal preparation which he manufactures, stocks, exhibits, distributes and sells under an invented proprietary name 'Germs Killer' since before the year 1928. The name 'Germs Killer1 of the said medicine has been registered under the Trade Marks Act. The medicine is manufactured and sold by the petitioner for the external treatment of skin diseases.3. It is not disputed that the said medicinal-preparation is a drug within the meaning of Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Dhannalal Sardarmal Vs. Seth Noshirwanji Goderej and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP321
V.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This is an application for stay o further proceedings consequent upon passing of the preliminary decree which is under appeal in this case. 2. Mr. Pande for the applicant relies upon the decisions in Karam Elahi v. ML Amirunnisa, AIR 1930 Lah 103 (A) and Diwan Chand v. Nanak Chtmd, AIR 1932 Lah 271 (B), in support of the contention that where an appeal is preferred against a preliminary mortgage decree the subsequent proceedings for passing of the final decree should generally be stayed. 3. This is no doubt held in the aforesaid cases. But these msCS relied upon two earlier decisions of that Court reported in Rup Narain v. Shibbu Mal, 107 Ind Gas 486 (Lah) (C) and Chhotelal v. Sultansingh, 111 Ind Cas 383 (Lah) (D). The former is a decision by Dalip Singh, J., who relied upon the Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Gajadhar Singh v. Kishen Jiwan Lal ILR 39 All 641: (AIR 1917 All 163) (E), for the view that there cannot be more than one final decree in a ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabsingh Hamirsingh Rajput Vs. Tarabai W/O Sagarsingh Bhilala and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP310
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This second appeal by Gulabsingh, one of the defendants in the suit, is from a decision of the Additional District Judge of Mandleshwar whereby he upheld the judgment and decree of the Court of Munsiff, Sanawad, giving to the Plaintiff Sagarsingh a decree directing the defendants Bherusingh and Prithvisingh to execute and register a sale deed of a house in favour of the plaintiff and further directing these two defendants and the defendant Gulabsingh to deliver possession of the house to the plaintiff. Sagarsingh and Prithvisingh arc now dead and the respondents Tarabai and Krishnakunwarbai are their legal representatives.2. The plaintiff's case was that on or about 4-11-1946 the defendant Bherusingh and Prithvisingh entered into an agreement with him for the sale of a house belonging to them for Rs. 300/-; that in pursuance of this agreement, he paid to the defendants Rs. 225/- on 6-11-1946 for discharging a mortgage on the house; and that on the evening of 6-11-1946 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »