Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Shri Lakhanlal Mishra Vs. Kashinath Dube
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP171; 1960CriLJ829
Bhutt, C.J.1. This appeal (No. 114 of 1956) and the counter appeal No. 128 of 1956 arise out of the same action. The present appellant Lakhanlal Mishra was the defendant and respondent Kashinath Dube, who is appellant in the counter appeal, was the plaintiff in the suit.2. Kashinath Dube is a practising lawyer in Raipur district. Lakhanlal Mishra on 11-11-1952 filed a complaint against him before the District Judge, Raipur, in which he made the following pertinent imputation:'On 25-10-1952, this Dubey Pleader called one Kartik Satnami an ex-surveillee, to Raipur at his residence through R. C. Mishra and in the presence of Namdas Satnami tutored him to depose when required that I (L.L. Mishra) was the receiver of the stolen properties of certain house breaking and theft cases which he (Kartik Satnami) had committed before. Besides that he also tutored him to depose that he (Kartik) brought allegations of adultery against one Rambagas Kurmi as he was made to say under my influence. On re...
Antersingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1959
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ413MP
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an application by a police constable contending that the order of dismissal is bad for two reasons of non-compliance with the statutory rules. Firstly while he had been appointed by the Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Bharat, he was removed by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Indore, who is, of course, a subordinate authority. The second ground is that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses that deposed against him.2. The first ground is by now covered by a number of rulings including one by the Supreme Court in Rajvi Amarsingh v. State of Rafasthan : [1958]1SCR1015 , in 1946, the petitioner was appointed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police of the erstwhile Indore State. He was continued in the service of the Madhya Bharat State and was ultimately absorbed in the service of the new State; but the appointment as such continued and there was no fresh appointment. Under the rules in force in the Madhya Bhar...
Sayrabai and ors. Vs. Ahmedji
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP111
P.V. Dixit, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of the Additional District Judge of Ujjain confirming the judgment and decree ot the Civil Judge, Second Class, Ujjain, whereby the defendants have been restrained from interfering and disturbing in any way the plaintiff's right ot way over a piece of land belonging to the appellants.2. The plaintiff's case as originally laid, was that he and the defendants were owners of adjacent houses; that in between the houses there was a joint piece of land over which he had a right to pass and repass; that the defendants were interfering with his right of using this land; and that, therefore, it should be partitioned and he be put in possession of his share. During the pendency of the suit, theplaint was amended and the plaintiff alleged in the alternative that if the land in question was held to be the exclusive property of the defendants, then he had a right of way over the kind and that, therefore, the defendants should be ...
Devidas Dhaniram Vs. Parma Gokalia and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1959MP413
ORDERShiv Dayal Shrivastava, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Judge, Gwalior, dismissing the plaintiff's suit as barred by time.2. The suit was based on an instalment Bond executed by the defendants Parma, Hariram and Tillu on July 24, 1952 in favour of Devidas. Defendants Kama and Devi were the sureties. The bond was for a sum of Rs. 350/ which was repayable as follows:(a) The debtors were to repay Rs. 200/- out of the principal amount and Rs. 40/- by way of interest, totalRs. 240/-, within one year by monthly instalments of Rs. 20/- each.(b) The balance of Rs. 150/- was to be paid within one year together with interest thereon at Rs, 2 per cent, per month.(c) In case there was default in the payment of any monthly instalment or interest for 3 months, the creditor was given the right to recover the whole amount at once.3. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant paid in all Rs. 136/- between September 13, 1952 and July 11, 1956. ...
Ratanchand Dipchand Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP9; [1960]38ITR188(MP)
Bhutt, C. J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay was directed by this Court to submit a statement of case under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the following question:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there was any material on record to hold that the assessee failed to explain the excess credit in the anamat account to the extent of Rs. 10,230/-in view of the addition made by the Department itself to the extent of that amount as the estimated profits to his income?'The above question has accordingly been referred to this Court for judgment.2. The assesses is a Hindu undivided family carrying on money-lending business and business in Kirana, gur, sugar, betel nuts, sweet oil, etc. The accounts are maintained by him according to the Diwali year, the material previous year for the purpose of assessment year 1951-52 being 22-10-1949 to 9-11-1950. The Income Tax Officer made the following four additions to his income viz.(a)Income fromundisclosed sour...
Devisingh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1963MP29; 1963CriLJ55
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. Five persons, namely, Chandansingh, Devi-singh, Udaisingh, Dulesingh and Bhagirathsingh alias Bhagoo Singh were accused of having caused the death of Mansingh and Kalusingh of village Biklakheri, district Shajapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, who tried them, has found Udaisingh, Devi Singh and Bhagirath guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code in respect of the murder of Mansingh as also of the same offence for the murder of Kalusingh and, further, under Section 148 of the Code. He has awarded death penalty to each of these three accused for each of the first two offences and a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 148. The other two accused, Chandansingh and Dulesingh, have been similarly convicted under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code for the murder of Mansingh as for the murder of Kalusingh and each of them has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on each of these counts. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›