Madhya Pradesh Court June 1959 Judgments
Abdul Karim Bhai Vs. Abdul Rehman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP16
P.V. Dixit, J.1. The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent for his ejectment from a house situated in Ujjain and for recovery of arrears of rent. The learned civil judge, First Class, Ujjain,who tried the suit, dismissed the plaintiff's claim for ejectment. The claim for arrears of rent was, however partially decreed. The decision of the trial court was upheld by the District Judge of Ujjain, The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this second appeal.2. One of the grounds on which the plaintiffsought to evict the defendant Abdul Rehman was that the defendant fell in arrears of rent and did not pay them despite repeated notices asking him to pay the arrears of rent within one month of the receipt of the notices. In reply, the defendant pleaded that he Lever made a default in the payment of rent and that the last notice to quit which the plaintiff gave on 13th February 1952 was waived by the plaintiff by accepting rent for a period after the expiry of the notice.Both the courts ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Abdul Latif and anr. Vs. Mohammad Abdul Rashid and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP399
Bhutt, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree in civil suit No. 17A of 1951 of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, by which the claim of the plaintiff Mst. Jaibunnissa for administration of her husband's estate was dismissed in limine. She died during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by her son and daughter.2. Mst. Jaibunnissa was the widow of Khan Sahib Mohammad Abdus Sattar, who died on 11-2-1951. He left behind two houses in the city of Jabalpur. The present appellant's Mohammad Abdul Latif and Mst. Akhtarurnnisa are her son and daughter. The respondents Mohammad Abdul Rashid Mohammad Abdul Rauf, and Mohammad Abdul Samad are her step-sons. They migrated to Pakistan,Accordingly the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property acting under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, declared the houses left by Khan Sahib Mohammad Abdus Sattar as evacuee property to the extent of their 7/12 share therein. This order is dated...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Khushal Chand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ791MP
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This reference made by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, is directed against the conviction of the non-applicant 10r two offences under Section 32 of the Central Provinces and Berar Shops and Establishments Act, 1957, for breach of Sections 4A and 24, of the Act, for each of which Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, in a summary trial sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. BO or to suffer, in default, simple imprisonment for one month.2. The trying Magistrate found that the non-applicant used the premises in his occupation for stocking, and letting on hire, bicycles. Since the premises were used for rendering services by letting out bicycles on hire, they constituted a shop within the meaning of Clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. There fore, the non-applicant who failed to get it duly registered as required by Section 4 of the Act, committed an offence punishable under Section 32 of the Act. Further the non-applicant employed in the shop Gaurishanker (P...
Tag this Judgment!Chowaram Bachan Vs. Thanuram S/O Nathela Sahu and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP163
Naik, J. 1. This civil revision has been referred to a Division Bench for decision at the instance of V.R. Sen. J. as it involves a point of general importance. The question that arises for consideration is whether a judgment purported to be delivered by Shri R.L. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Durg, on 14-12-1956, in civil suit No. 12-A of 1954, was legally valid in law.2. The facts which have given rise to the problem may now shortly be stated. The suit was instituted on 10-9-1954 for the recovery of Rs. 16,000/-. The parties closed their case on 1-12-1956. After arguments, the Court fixed the case for judgment on 11-12-1956. On that date it was adjourned to 14-12-1956, on the ground that the judgment was not ready. The order-sheet of 14-12-1956 reads as follows:'Plaintiff by Shri Shukla and Pande and Dass. Defendants 1 to 3 by Shri Patnkar. Defendant No. 4 by Shri Agarwal. Judgment delivered.'Shri R.L. Gupta, the presiding judge of the Court, died on 23-12-1956. On 26-12-1956, th...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Gupta, Charcoal and Firewood Dealer Vs. Cantonment Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1961MP361
Sharma, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to the respondent not to interfere in any way with the running of the petitioner's charcoal and firewood business in house No. 22 at Sadar Bazar, Cantonment, Jabalpur.2. The petitioner's case is that he carries on the business of selling charcoal and firewood in house No. 22, and that he keeps his stock in bulk in premises outside the area of the Jabalpur Cantonment Board. Under Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of the Cantonments' Act (No. II of 1924), hereinafter referred to as the Act, dealers in straw, wood, charcoal and other inflammable materials are prohibited from carrying on their trade unless they obtain a licence in this behalf from the Cantonment Board. The licence is granted for a period of only one year with the result that a fresh licence has to be obtained at the end of every year.3. On 25-3-1957 the firm Munnalal C...
Tag this Judgment!Dewa Kalu Balai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP418; 1959CriLJ1438
ORDERShiv Dayal Srivastava, J. 1. The petitioner was tried by the Magistrate First Class Agar under Section 215 of the Penal Code for having taken Rs. 200/- from Gangaram whose buffaloes had been stolen but not doing his all to get the thieves convicted.2. He was sentenced to suffer Rule I, for one year. The conviction and sentence have been maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur.3. The prosecution case was that two buffaloes belonging to Gangaram were stolen from his house. He went in search for them. He received information that the buffaloes had been seen with Dewa Balia (petitioner). He was, therefore, contacted. He agreed that the buffaloes would be restored to Gangaram provided he was paid Rs. 200/-. This took place soon after the theft which itself had taken place on the night between the 29th and the 30th November 1956. The agreement between Gangaram and Dewa Balia was arrived at in the morning of November 30, 1956. The amount was paid to him thus; Rs. 175/- paid...
Tag this Judgment!Nazirsingh Zandasingh Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP411
ORDERShiv Dayal Shrivastava, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, and sentenced to three months R. I. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.2. The case for the prosecution was that inthe night between the 7th and the 8th may, 1956,atheft was committed in the house of Mohanlal Dabra Mandi. A report was lodged to the police at 6. 30 A. M. on the 8th May by Mohanlal and a list of property was also submitted by him (that is Ex. P2). In connection with that theft, Nazir Singh petitioner was arrested on May 11, 1956 by Udaya Bhan Singh (P. W. 1) Station Officer Police, Dabra, The same day, he was transferred to Lashkar Kotwali.There he gave an information (memo Ex, P8) on which, and at his instance, three articles were recovered from the possession of Saublwgmal (P. W. 2) as per memo. Ex. P6. The allegation was that the petitioner, under a fictitious nam...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Pearelal Kirar Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP11; 1960CriLJ78
Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, J. 1. The appellant was tried under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge Guna. He has been convicted under Section 387 of the Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The case for the prosecution was that in a case under the Arms Act against the accused,Pancham Singh (P.W. 1) was a witness for the prosecution. In that case the accused was convicted. When he came back from the prison he went to Pancham Singh, who was working in his field and demanded Rs. 500/- from him. Pancham Singh expressed his inability to pay him that amount. Whereupon, the accused who was carrying a loaded gun in his hand fired at Pancham Singh, who cleverly enough lay flat at the right time and thus saved himself from the shot. Lallu Ram (P.W. 2) and Moti Lal (P.W. 3) came there.The accused tried to run, but was overtaken. He tried to reload the gun, but the same was not only snatched from him, but he was also given a beating with its butt end...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Banshi Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP105; 1960CriLJ482
ORDERShiv Dayal Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, for enhancement of sentence.2. The respondent was produced before the Magistrate First Class Jora for being tried under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate examined the accused under Section 251A(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 011 8-1-1958. The accused in his statement denied the allegations made against him. On 11-1-1958 the Magistrate framed a charge which was read out to the accused. Therein is recorded his plea of guilty in these words. 'Jurm kiya hai. Mera Pahla apradh hai, chhama chahta hun'. The Magistrate thereupon convicted the accused under Section 304A and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 25/- only.3. The Additional Sessions Judge having found the sentence to be manifestly inadequate recommends that it should be enhanced to a fine of Rs. 100/-.4. I have heard the learned Deputy Government Advocate who supports the reference and Shri. J.P. Gupta, who not...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Kadore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP180; 1960CriLJ914
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against an order of Magistrate First Class, Damoh, dated 29-1-1958 by which he held that, in virtue of the powers conferred on him under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to its amendment by Section 6 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1955 (26 of 1955), he was competent to exorcise those powers in relation to a criminal case instituted after the amendment came into force. The Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, is of the view that the powers conferred under the un-amended Section 30 of the. Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised under the new section.2 Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it stood before it was amended by Act 20 of 1935 was as follows:'In East Punjab, Delhi, Oudh, the Central Provinces, Coorg and Assam, and in those parts of the other provinces in which there are Deputy Commissioners o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›