Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Mujtabai Begum and anr. Vs. Mehbub Rehman and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP359
Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-1-1952 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1949. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 4 against the appellants, who were defendants 1 and 2, and respondents 5 to 8, who were defendants 3 to 6.2. The relationship between the parties is shown by the following genealogical tree: ABDUL REHMAN KHAN ___________________________________|___________________________________________________ | | | Abdul Karim Khan Azizur Rehman Khan Sirajur Rehman Khan= | | Widow, Mujtabal Begum | ____________|________________________ (deft. 1) | | | | | and | M.R. Khan S.R. Khan R.R. Khan R.R. Khan daughter, Solat Jahan | (plff. 1) (plff. 2) (plff. 3) (plff. 4) (deft. 2) _____________|_____________________ | | | | A.H. Khan H.B. Khan F.J. Khan M.J. Khan (deft. 3) (deft. 4) (deft. 5) (deft. 6)The dispute relates to the property of Sirajur Rehman Khan, who died on 5-12-1946. Appellant No. 1 Mujtabai ...
Mathrabai W/O Radhakrishna Bhat and anr. Vs. Kanhaiyalal Baluram Agraw ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP375
Dixit, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings of a money-decree held by Kanhaiyalal against the appellants Mathrabai and Ganeshram. In execution proceedings of the decree, one engine, its accessories, a water pump and a rubber hose-pipe belonging to the judgment-debtors were attached. The judgment-debtors raised the objection that they were agriculturists and as the articles attached were implements of husbandry they were exempt from attachment under the proviso (b) to Section 60(1) C. P. C. The learned Civil Judge, First Class, Indore, overruled this objection holding that the engine was being used for running a flour-mill; that the water-pump with lying idle for over eighteen months as the well where it was fitted had dried up permanently and that, therefore, the engine, the water-pump and its other fittings could not be regarded as implements of husbandry. Hence this appeal by the judgment-debfors.2. At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal on 31-3-1959, we pass...
Ramdas Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP353
Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner seeks a writ against the non-applicants to compel them to complete the election to the office of the President Municipal Committee, Katni, District Jabalpur. 2. The Collector Jabalpur had published a programme of election to the Municipality of Katni according to which the nomination papers had to be filed by 12-5-1958 and the polling was to take place on 13-6-1958. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for contesting the office of President on 5-5-1958. Section 18 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act) provided for the election of the President directly by all the voters. It was, however, amended by the Madhya Pra-desh Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. 14 of 1958) which came into force on 5-5-1958. By this amendment the President is now to be elected by the members of the Committee. Section 7 of the...
Tolaram Mulchand and anr. Vs. Shop Inspector, Nagar Palika
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP382; 1959CriLJ1335
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This case has been referred to the Division Bench by Newaskar J., since he took a different view than the one taken by this court in criminal Revn. No. 57 of 1956, Gordhandas v. Indore City Municipality, 1957 MPC 11: (AIR 1957 Madh Pra. 6). The question is, whether under Section 53(1) of the Madhya Bharat Shops and Establishments Act (No. 7 of 1952), only one person can be prosecuted or it is permissible to prosecute more than one.2. The Municipal Magistrate. Indore convicted Tolaram and Uttamchand under Section 47(a) read with Section 7(1) of the Madhya Bharat Shops and Establishments Act, 1952, and under Section 47(a) read with Rule 18(14) of the Rules framed thereunder, and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 25/-on each count. On a revision petition having been filed by them the learned Sessions Judge. Indore referred the case to this court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the recommendation that the conviction of one of them might be se...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalu Kachru Keer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP391; 1959CriLJ1340
V.R. Newaskar, J. 1. Accused Kalu son of Kachru Keer of Metwas was convicted by the Sessions Judge Ujjain under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced to death. The accused has preferred appeal against his con-viction. The proceedings for confirmation of the sentence of death have also been placed before us for consideration. Both the appeal as well as the proceedings for confirmation of the death sentence are being considered together and disposed of by this judgment.2. The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution may be briefly stated as under:The houses of the accused and deceased Ratan-singh were close to each other with an intervening lane belonging to Ratansingh. The accused Kalu lived in his house along with his two brothers and mother Gangabai. The brothers opened a window in their wall on the side of Ratansingh's lane. Ratansingh objected to this and later filed a suit for mandatory injunction for securing closure of the window. This suit succeeded and a decree f...
Hariprasad Jaiswal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP389
K.L. Pandey, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the reversing decree of the lower appeal Court whereby, in an action for deceit, a decree for Rs. 540/- was passed against him.2. The broad facts of this case are no longer in dispute. Two money-orders, one for Rs. 375/-addressed to Badriprasad Shukla and another for Rs. 165/- addressed to Ramashanker Agarwal, both care of Hariprasad Jaiswal, proprietor Hindusthan Restaurant, Katni, were received by post on 8th May 1951 in the post office at Katni. On the same day, in the usual course, postman Pyarelal (P. W. 4) made payments of the two sums to two persons who were staying in the hotel of the defendant (Hariprasad). In both cases, the defendant not only attested the signatures of the two payees, but also himself wrote their addresses on the money-order coupons under the printed matter appearing thereon as given below:'The payment has been made in my presence to the payee who is personally known to me and whose permanent address is...
iftikhar Ahmed Son of Dost Mohammad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1961MP140
Shrivastava, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner Iftikhar Ahmed for quashing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner also seeks to quash the declaration issued under Section 9 of the Act and prays for a writ restraining the Slate Government from taking any action on those notifications and the declaration.2. The petitioner is the lessee of three survey numbers totalling to 6.93 acres in the City of. Bhopal. The lease was taken by him from respondent No. 3 (Municipal Board, Bhopal). At the instance of respondent No. 2, the State Government (respondent No. 1) issued Notifications Nos. 768-19130-VII-N and 76-19130-VII-N respectively under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The first is dated 23-12-1958 and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 2-1-1959.The second is dated 3-1-1959 and was published in the Gazette on 9-1-1959. In the first notificati...
Kirodimal Ganeshlal Bani Vs. Haji Suleman Haji Wali Mohd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP136
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the Court below for specific performance of a contract of sale of a house.2. The house in suit belonged to respondent No. 1 Haji Suleman, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1. Haji Suleman migrated to Pakistan before the smt. The house in suit was declared as evacuee property on 1-8-1952. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Raigarh, was irnpleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit.3. The plaintiff's case is that on 18-1-1949 the defendant No. 1, Haji Suleman, agreed to sell the house in suit to him for Rs. 3100/- only. He executed a sale-deed but it could not be registered. Rupees 1000/- were paid by the plaintiff as part consideration of the safe and Rs. 2100/- are still due. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to specific performance of the contract On payment of the amount of Rs. 2100/- and prayed the Court to order the defendant No. 2 (Custodian) to execute the necessa...
Dhapu Vs. Puri Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP356; 1959CriLJ1184
ORDERShiv Dayal Shrivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Section 56IA of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that proceedings under Section 552 of that Code pending before the District Magistrate Shajapur be quashed.2. Non-petitioner No. 1 Puranlal made an application to the District Magistrate on 29th January, 19.57 complaining thai his daughter Dhapubai (who was impleaded as non-peti-tioner No. 1 in that application) was unlawfully detained for unlawful purpose by non-petitioners 2 and 3 who are respectively her husband and father-in-law. The unlawful detention alleged was that non-petitioner No. 1 had come to the petitioner because she was tired of the harassment at the hands of non-petitioner No. 3, who attempted to take undue liberties with her on several occasions. On 26-1-1957 when the petitioner had been out and Dhapubai was alone in his house, non-petitioners 2 and 3 aided by 5 or 6 men, came to the house armed with weapons and look her away forcibly and were detaining he...
Dad Khan Khudad Khan Vs. Abdul Samad Peeru Bakhsh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP65
G.P. Bhutt, C.J. 1. This revision is by the plaintiff whose plaint in the suit to enforce an award, filed in the Court of Small Causes, has been returned for presentation to the proper Court. 2. The suit was filed in the Court of First Civil Judge, Jabalpur, empowered under Section 18 of the C. P. Courts Act, for recovery of Rs. 250/-in terms of an award which is said to have been given by the arbitrators who were appointed by both the parties to decide their dispute. The lower Court has held that the matter relating to arbitration now falls to be decided under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and as the Court of Small Causes is excluded from the definition of the word 'Court' in Section 2 (e) of the said Act, except for the purpose of arbitration proceedings under Section 21, the suit has to be tried by a regular Court. This view was not consistent with a decision of this Court by Pollock J. in Nanhelal v. Gulabchand, ILR (1944) Nag 340 : (AIR 1944 Nag 24). Accordingly, the case was placed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›