Madhya Pradesh Court August 1958 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.
Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Vs. Hanskumar Kishanchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP172
T.P. Naik, J. 1. The judgment in this appeal shall also govern the judgment in first appeal No. 56 of 1953.2. The facts of the case relevant for the purpose of the appeals may shortly be stated as follows.3. The plaintiff-appellant, Radhasoami Sat-sang Sabha, Dayalbagh, Agra, filed a suit against the defendant-respondent, Hanskumar, for the realisation of Rs. 21,949/1/6/-, which was the balance due on a mortgage dated 21st October, 1939 executed by the defendant Hanskumar in favour of the plaintiff Sabha, by sale of the mortgage security. The claim on the mortgage was negatived, though the suit was decreed by passing a money decree in the sum of Rs. 16,612/9/- only with future interest at 4 per cent per annum from the date o the decree till realization in favour of the plaintiff Sabha. Both the sides have appealed against the said judgment and decree. The plaintiff's appeal is first appeal No. 105 of 1953, while the defendant's appeal is first appeal No. 56 of 1953.4. The suit of the p...
Chunnilal Ken Vs. Shyamlal Sukhram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP50; 1959CriLJ199
A.H. Khan, J.1. The petitioner was a candidate for a seat of Lok-Sabha, the Parliament of India. He was, however, defeated and his rivals (it was a double constituency) Shri Radha Charan Sharma and Shri Surya Prasad were elected to the seat. On being unsuccessful, the petitioner filed an election petition-before the Election Commissioner of India, who appointed the District Judge, Gwalior, as an Election Tribunal and the case is now pending before the said Election Tribunal. The petitioner has alleged that non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, are related to Shri Surya Prasad, that they had had a pamphlet printed by non-petitioner No. 3, who is both the printer and proprietor of Maharashtra Press, Janakganj, Lashkar.It is stated that this pamphlet has been published to prejudice the case of the petitioner in the eyes of the Election Tribunal. It is contended that Non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as the author of the pamphlet, and, Non-petitioner No. 3 as its printer have committed contempt of the El...
Firm NaraIn Das Mangal Sen Vs. Anand Behari Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP408
A.H. Khan, J. 1. The facts leading to this first appeal in brier are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant on 19-9-49 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7379/4/9. The suit was instituted in the name of 'Firm Narain Das Mangalsen.' During its pendency in the trial Court, mid about 4 years after its institution on 23-2-53, the defendant applied under Order 30, Rule 2, C. P. C., for the disclosure of the names of the partners. In reply to the application for disclosure of the names, the plaintiffs said that Order 30, R. 2 did not apply to the suit, because the plaintiff-Firm was not a partnership firm but was a joint family trading firm.The plaintiffs, however, disclosed the names of such members of the joint family firm, who were major and stated that Mangalsen was the Karta of the joint Hindu Family Firm, and that Naraindas. who had filed the suit, was the Mukhtaram of Mangalsen, the Karta. The defendant again applied to the Court on 26-3-53 for the disclosure of the name...
Ramdayal and ors. Vs. Purshottam Pannalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP42
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. In this second appeal by the defendants from the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, the only material point at this stage is one on the law of limitation, which can be stated thus: There is a contract for the sale of property within a period specified in the agreement, with simultaneous payment of the price by the intending purchaser. Both parties are aware that the sale cannot take place legally, unless a particular authority sanctions it. Accordingly, at the instance of the intending purchaser the intending vendor applies for the permission immediately after the execution of the contract.The proceedings for permission are disposed of long after the term mentioned in the agreement and the order is one refusing it. In a suit for the recovery of the price by the would-be purchaser, does limitation start from the date of the order refusing the permission, or the earlier date on which ended the term mentioned in the agreement? In other words, is time of the esse...
Jodhai Ramdayal Vs. Bharat Sukhdi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP97
P.K. Tare, J.1. The defendant has filed this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the decree passed by Shri S. N. Awasthy, Small Cause Judge, Bemetara.2. The non-applicant filed the suit for redeeming the pledged ornaments. The plaintiff alleged that he had taken a loan of Rs. 140/- by pledging the ornaments and that he had repaid Rs. 130/- in July 1956. According to him, an amount of Rs. 68/ 10/- was due from him inclusive of interest. The defendant alleged that Rs. 250/- had been advanced, as loan and that no repayment was made. He contended that the redemption amount was Rs.. 250/-in addition to interest.He also raised a plea that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Small Cause Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim for redemption upon payment of Rs. 120/- within 15 days, in default of which the amount was to carry interest at Rs. 6/- per cent per month. Probably the awarding of interest on the amount of Rs. 120/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›