Madhya Pradesh Court December 1959 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.
The State Vs. Gayadin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP188; 1960CriLJ917
A.H. Khan, J.1. Gayadin son of Binde Gadariya was tried by the Special Judge Bhind, constituted under Section 12 of the M.B Public Security Act for an offence under Section 396 I.P.C. and was acquitted. The Government have now filed an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for Gayadin respondent has raised a preliminary objection that as there is no provision for an appeal against acquittal in the Public Security Act under which the accused was tried, this appeal is incompetent.3. The learned counsel has argued that the Public Security Act is a Special Act and Section 19 of the Act makes provision for appeal and revision. But although it is provided that a convicted person can file an appeal to the High Court, yet there is nothing in the Act to entitle the Government to file an appeal against acquittal. In support of his contention he relies upon Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Bengal v. Luchmi Narayan...
Mathura Prasad Phool Chand and ors. Vs. Parmanand Thakur Das and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP161
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (m) of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order recording a compromise which is challenged as fraudulent, unauthorized and illegal.2. The material facts arc that on 20-9-1955, the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Judge for sale of mortgage property for the recovery of Rs. 22,871-11-0 and consequential reliefs. The defendants Parma, Tulsiram, Ballabh Das and Smt. Narayani were the mortgagors while Badrilal defendant No. 5 was the subsequent mortgagee. On 28-12-1955, the first four defendants filed their written statement and on 30-12-1955, Badri Lal filed his written statement. 27-1-1956 was then fixed for the framing of issues.3. However, on 4-1-1956 a compromise petition was made wherein it was stated that the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 had arrived at a private settlement, that the plaintiffs had received from the defendants the amount of the claim and it was prayed that the suit ...
P.L. Singh and anr. Vs. C.B. Kekre, Dist. Judge and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP146; [1960(1)FLR362]; (1960)IILLJ422MP
Dixit, C.J.1. The facts of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against a decision of the District Judge, Chhindwara, are that the petitioners made an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before the Civil Judge (Class I), Chhindwara, for a direction under Sub-section (3) for payment of certain wages which had been delayed and for compensation amounting to Rs. 5,570/- in respect of wages for the two quarters ending 30-9-1954 and 31-12-1954. After considering the merits of the application the learned Civil Judge rejected it. Thereupon the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the District Judge, Chhindwara. The learned District Judge relying on Kherna Nand v. East Indian Rly., Administration, ILR (1943) All 490: AIR 1943 All 243, Rajendranath v. Manager, French Motor Car Co Ltd., AIR 1952 Cal 928 and P. Kumar v. Running Shed Foreman E. I. Rly., AIR 1946 Oudh 148: ILR 21 Luck 348, held that an order...
Muslim Wakf Board and anr. Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP249
ORDERT.C. Shrivastava, J.1. This petition for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiffs against the order, dated 29-6-1959, of the 2nd Civil Judge (Class II), Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 50 of 1958, deciding certain preliminary issues.2. The non-applicant (defendant) Municipal Board, Bhopal, served a notice on the plaintiff No. 1 to remove a shed from an open site described in the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs is that the site is owned by plaintiff No. 2 and has been leased to plaintiff No. 1. They alleged that the site did not belong to the Municipal Board, Bhopal, and had not vested in it. Accordingly, they claimed that the notice given by the non-applicant to them to remove the shed is improper and illegal. They prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the structure or removing the materials thereof.3. On behalf of the non-applicant a plea was taken that the land belonged to the State Government who should b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›