Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Mannalal Balgovind Mishra Vs. Bhalchandrao Ramchandrarao Bhuskute
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP41
P.V. Dixit, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal arc that on 3rd July 1948 a decree for possession of certain lands was passed by the Court of Munsiff, Khargone, in favour of the respondent arid against the appellant. On 9th October 1948 the respondent filed an application for execution of the decree in the Court of Munsiff, Khargone. The execution of the decree was, however, stayed until 19'h September 1949 by an order of the District Judge of Mandleshwar in an appeal preferred by Mannalal. That appeal was dismissed. Thereupon Mannalal preferred a second appeal in the Madhya Bharat High Court and the execution of the decree was again stayed by the High Court till the disposal of the appeal filed by Mannalal.The appeal filed in the High Court was also dismissed on 27th February 1951. A review petition was then filed by Mannalal in the Madhya Bharat High Court which was rejected on 25th April 1955. Thereafter the decree-holder moved the Court in which he had filed an application fo...
Champalal Hirachand and anr. Vs. Mohanlal Narayandas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP397a
P.V. Dixit, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of District Judge of Dhar refecting an application preferred by the appellants under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P. C. for recording and certifying an adjustment of a decree under execution, said to have been arrived at between the parties.2. The material facts are that a decree was passed by the Court of the District Judge of Ujjain on 24th February 1956. Thereafter the decree-holders moved the court of the District Judge of Ujjain for the issue of a precept under Section 46, Civil P. C. for attachment of certain property belonging to the judgment-debtors situated within the limits of the court of the District Judge of Dhar. In pursuance of that precept, the judgment-debtors' property was attached in March 1957. On 29th March 1957 the judgment-debtors presented in the court of the District Judge of Dhar an application for recording an adjustment under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P. C.This application was rejected on the ground that the decree ...
C.P. Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Firm Hasanali Abdul Ali and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP288
Bhutt, C. J.1. This is a letters patent appeal of the C. P. Syndicate Ltd., Nagpur, against the order of Mudholkar J. in Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 163 of 1949, confirming the order of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in civil suit No. 3-B of 1934, by which its execution application was held to be barred by limitation.2. The C. P. Syndicate Ltd., Nagpur obtained a consent money decree on 22nd July 1936 in the Court of the, First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in civil suit No. 3-B of 1934, against Hasan Ali, Gulam Abbas and Abdul Kadar who are brothers. The decree was subsequently transferred for - execution to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara. The decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree on 5-4-1941, which was dismissed on 13th December, 1941. A fresh execution application was filed On the same date, namely, 13th December 1941. Hasan Ali made an objection to the execution alleging that on 18th July 1936 the decree-holder ...
Maniram Maksudan Vs. Ramdayal Maksudan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP7
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 14-10-1955 in Civil Appeal No. 54-A of 1954, delivered by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, reversing the judgment of the Civil Judge (Class II), Janjgir, dated 15-4-1953.2. The facts of the case are mostly undisputed. The appellant-plaintiff Maniram and the respondents-defendants Ramdayal and Hariram are the sons of one Maksudan, The village Bade Sipat, Tahsil Janjgir, District Bilaspur, was held in protected thekedari rights by the family. The theka was recorded in the name of the plaintiff Maniram. In 1935 there was a partition in the family in which the sir and the Khudkasht lands attached to the theka and other properties belonging to the family were divided between the three brothers.3. The suit lands totalling to an area of 11.18 acres in that village had been given to one Budga, who was working as a washerman for the family, on the condition that the lands would be r...
Amarlal Goru and anr. Vs. Vijayabai D/O Pusa Singroda
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP400
T.C. Shrivastava, J.1. Shri M. L. Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants, heard. None appeared for the respondent to contest the appeal.2. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1957 by which the marriage between the appellants has been declared null and void.3. The appellant No. 1 Amarlal was married to the respondent Vijayabai long ago. Later, he contracted a marriage with appellant No. 2, Roopwati in February 1957 after the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 had come into force. The respondent Vijayabai then filed a suit for having the marriage between the appellants declared null and void. The petition filed by her purports to be under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the relief claimed falls under Section 11 of that Act.4. The respondent as a previously married wife of the appellant No. 1 Amarlal was entitled under Section 10 of that Act only to a decree for judicial separation so far as she was...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ranjit Kumar Chatarjee and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP284; 1959CriLJ983
V.R. Nevaskab, J. 1. Respondent Ranjitkumar Chatarjee was the Assistant Station Master at Fatehabad at the material time. Respondent Yeshwantrao was the pointsman then. Both of them were charged separately under Section 101 of the Railways Act for transgression of Rule S. R. 37 (2) and Rule 52 of General Rules for the Indian Railways respectively. Yeshwantrao was also charged under Sections 304A and 337 I. P. C, The driver of the train coming from Ujjain to Fatehabad Mr. Anthony was also prosecuted along with them. All the three accused were acquitted by the Additional District Magistrate Railway Lands, Indore. The State preferred appeal against this order of acquittal. At the preliminary hearing the appeal against Anthony was dismissed by the order dated 23-7-1958. The present appeal relates to the remaining two accused. 2. The incident for which they were prosecuted occurred at Fatehabad Railway Station in the morning of 2-1-1956 when the passenger-train running between Ujjain and Mh...
Anand Kumar JaIn Vs. the Government of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP265
S.D. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was a candidate for admission to one of the Medical Colleges in the Madhya Pradesh for the academic year 1958-59 but admission was refused to him. He now prays that by a writ of mandamus, the authorities concerned be ordered to admit him.2. The petitioner's case is that applications were invited for admission to the medical colleges in the Madhya Pradesh and rules were framed for admission to the M. B. B. Section, first year course for the Session 1958-59 by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. A printed copy of these rules has been filed with the petition. They are styled as 'Medical Colleges in Madhya Pradesh Rules for Admission 1958' (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He fulfilled the minimum qualification having passed the Intermediate Examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology.The Rules provided for the order of preference in the selection of candidates. According to the ...
Dammulal and ors. Vs. Kalawati Devi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP18
Bhutt, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal from the decree for money passed by the Court of Additional CivilJudge (Class I), Jabalpur, in civil suit No. 36-B of 1951 (18-B of 1952), dated 3rd February 1955.2. The suit was based on a bond (Exh. P. 5), dated 9th January 1950, for Rs. 7,000/-. It purports to be executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as principal debtors, and by defendant No. 3 as their surety, in consideration of surrender by the plaintiff of her rights under the lease deed Exh. D-7, dated 23-10-1948. The circumstances under which the bond was executed are as under.3. A building at Jabalpur, called the Gulab Theatre, admittedly belonged to three brothers, Biranlal, Ballilal and Chhotelal. Chhotelal is dead and has left a son Chokhelal (D.W. 3). The three brothers leased the Gulab Theatre to one Jamunadas for a period of six years on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- under a patta (Exh. D-5) dated 1st July 1944. The lease was renewable for a fu...
Ratansingh Nihalsingh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP216; 1959CriLJ723
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. This is an application under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code by five accused, who are said to have been challaned under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Their application for bail was dismissed by the Special Judge, Morena.2. The right to be at liberty is a valuable right and when an application is given for bail, it is this valuable right which the accused seeks from the Court. Such applications are not to be mechanically or perfunctorily dismissed. After seeing the record, the Court must apply its mind to the facts of the case and then decide whether or not the accused should be given his freedom till the decision of the case. What I find is that the lower Courts instead of applying their minds to the case, often make a trite observation that the offence being a serious one, the accused need not be released on bail.3. The accused, in this case, were arrested on 17-4-58 and kept in custody for about 2 months after which an identification p...
J.C. Mills Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP365
ORDER1. The petitioner is an industrial concern producing, for its own consumption, electric energy in its own power house. It has been taxed to electricity duty under Section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Electricity Duty Act of 1949 as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1956 (Act VII of 1956 Chap IV). It has prayed that a proper writ or direction should be granted declaring the Electricity Duty Act as ultra vires of the Constitution and void as against him, and consequently to enjoin the State Government from levying the duty, and ordering it to refund the duty already collected.2. The petition has been fully and very ably presented by Shri Chitale, who has on our request, dealt with all the grounds he relies upon. Firstly, it is urged that even within the framework of the Act as amended, the duty cannot be levied from a producer producing electric power lor his own consumption or a consumer using electric power produced by himself. Secondly, the argume...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »