Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Kajodimal Vijaylal Mahajan Vs. Darbarilal Devilal Agarwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP247
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This suit for recovery of mesne profits was brought by plaintiff Darbarilal against defendant Kajodimal on the allegations that the plaintiff had purchased a portion of the house in occupation of the defendant from its previous owner Madanlal Patwari. The other portion in occupation of the defendant was sold to one Gulabchand. The plaintiff considered the occupation of the defendant as amounting to trespass and has brought the suit for recovery of mesne profits and damages for use and occupation of the premises in question by the defendant.2. The defendant denied the plaintiffs allegations that he was in occupation of the premises in question as a trespasser. He also denied his liability for payment of the mesne profits. He assailed the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, before whom the suit was filed, to try the same.3. It appears clear from the pleadings that the entire house at one time belonged to one Madanlal and the defendant was his tenant in respec...
Chintamanrao Balajirao Vs. Digram Badluram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP149; 1960CriLJ609
ORDERP.K. Tare, J.1. This revision under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is by the complainant. Upon the report of the applicant, the Sagar Police put up a challan against the non-applicant Digram and three others, namely, Girilal, Kishorilal and Ramgopal for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420, 483, 485 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code. At the initial stage of the trial, the Trial Magistrate discharged the accused Digram under Section 251-A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The present revision is directed against the order dated 8-7-1957, passed by Shri M. Bajpai, First Additional Sessions judge, Sagar, refusing to set aside the order of discharge passed by Shri L. B. B. Singh. Judge-Magistrate, Sagar on 11-2-1957 in Criminal Case No. 33 of 1956.2. It was the prosecution case that the non-applicant and the 3 other accused entered into a conspiracy for cheating, and with that object in view, they were in possession of counterfeit trade mark of bidi labels identical w...
Kapoor Chand Vs. City of Jabalpur Corporation and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP179; 1960CriLJ913
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. The applicant (accused), Kapurchand, had been convicted by the Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having sold 12 chhataks of adulterated milk to N. B. Gujerathi (P. W. 1), Food Inspector of the Jabalpur Corporation, on 7-8-1957, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. His appeal to the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, was dismissed on 4-9-1958.2. Gujerathi (P. W. 1), the food inspector of the Jabalpur Corporation, on 7-8-1957, purchased 12 chhataks of milk as a sample from the milk shop of the applicant situated at Lordganj, Jabalpur, for Rs. .47 n.p. The milk was represented by the applicant to be mixed milk of a cow and a buffalo. Ex. P-1 is signed by the applicant and specifies the purpose (e.g., for examination by the Public Analyst) for which the milk sample was obt...
Bhagirath Bhana Banjara Vs. Balkrishna Ganpat Neema Mahajan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP198
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this petition for revision are few and simple.2. Opponent Balkrishna obtained a mortgage decree against Dalpat. While this suit was pending Dalpat exchanged the mortgaged property with another property belonging to the present applicant Bhagirath. This exchange was ejected after due sanction of the Revenue Authorities and the mutation of names was effected accordingly. Balkrishna after obtaining the mortgage-decree 'sought execution thereof against Dalpat. As the decree-holder sought sale of an agricultural holding the decree was transferred to the Collector. After the transfer of the decree to the Collectorate Dalpat died. Thereupon the Deputy Collector Khargone who was dealing with the execution sent back the decree along with the information regarding Dalpat's death.3. Thereupon an application was submitted on behalf of the decree-holder for continuing the execution against his minor son Rukhadoo with his mother Gogalibai as his gua...
Gulabchand Ramlal and anr. Vs. Onkar Bhola and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP187
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. Facts giving rise to this second appeal are as follows:2. A decree for money was obtained by the appellants against the respondents on 30-9-1930. This decree was put into execution from time to time. Last execution petition was filed on 14-12-1946. By this petition the decree-holders prayed for attachment of the moveables belonging to judgment-debtors for the realisation of their dues. The judgment-debtors raised an objection on the basis of Section 48 of Civil Procedure Code that since more than 12 years bad elapsed since the passing of the decree no fresh order for execution could nave been passed. The executing court held on 24-1950 that since the execution of decree had been stayed by lawful order the petition, for execution was not barred under Section 48 C. P. C.At this stage the executing court asked the decree-holders to disclose what relief did they want and fixed the case for further orders on 25-10-50. On that day the decree-holder submitted a petition th...
Jiwajirao Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP256
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. The Employees' State Insurance Court lodged a claim before the Judge Employees' State Insurance Court, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. Three preliminary objections were raised by the appellant company before the said special Court. The learned Judge decided issues Nos. 1, 7 and 8 against the appellant. He held :(1) 'That the appellant company was the principal employer' within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act; (7) That he had jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that claim was not barred by time; (8) That Shri Sachchar was competent to sign and verify the pleading. 2. It is against these preliminary findings that the appellant company has come up in appeal to this Court. In my opinion, this appeal is not competent.3. Shri Dubey relies on Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act and his contention is that the word 'order' in that section is comprehensive enough to include 'any' order that may be passed. It is the argument of t...
Charan Pal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP80; (1960)ILLJ333MP
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Charan Pal Singh son of Baldeo Singh alleging that the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector in the Agriculture Department in the State of Madhya Bharat, that he was suspended on 7-4-1953 and as a result of an enquiry conducted by the Collector, Bhilsa, he was first dismissed on 8-5-1953. But on 11-5-1953, the order of dismissal was withdrawn and he was reinstated. Subsequent to this, another enquiry was held against him and the Director of Agriculture on the basis of the report of enquiry, issued a notice to him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. After he had furnished his explanation to the Director of Agriculture, he was dismissed on 17-11-1953. Against this order of removal he filed an appeal before the Government of Madhya Bharat, but that too was dismissed on 20-1-1956.The learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions :First, that the Collector was not competent to suspend him...
Firm Ramnath Ramgopal Gattani and ors. Vs. Firm Ramnath Moolchand and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP257
V.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The circumstances leading to it are as follows:On 23-12-1943 the appellant decree-holder obtained a money decree against the respondent for money. The appeal preferred by the respondent against that decree was dismissed on 10-1-1945. Thereafter an execution petition was filed by the appellant for realisation of the decretal amount. In the course of this execution petition a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 12-8-1948 whereby the decree-holder settled the entire claim under the decree for a consideration of Rs. 15000/-and the respondents sold two of his houses for consideration of Rs. 8000/- and 5000/- to the appellant and the satisfaction was thus obtained by his decree by the appellant to the extent of that sum of Rs. 13000/-.The balance of the amount of Rs. 2000/-was agreed to He paid within two months. The respondent had also borrowed Rs. 200/- from the appellant for meeting the expenses of stamps r...
Munnilal Kailash Chandra and ors. Vs. Akabai D/O. Malharrao and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP130
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. This revision raises an interesting point. The question is whether the Rules made by the High Court at Nagpur in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'The Code') and which were in force in the former State of Madhya Pradesh as it existed before the Reorganization of States on 1-11-1956, are enforceable in that territory of the new Madhya Pradesh which upto 31-10-1950 was called the Part B State of Madhya Bharat.2. The material facts are these. In execution of a decree against Kailash Chandm (judgment-debtor), Akabai (decree-holder) got his house attached. Munnilal and others filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 13-3-1959. Without deciding that petition, the executing Court fixed 1-7-1959, for the sale of the house. The objectors then filed an application on May 8, 1959 praying that the sale be stayed until the disposal of their objection petition. The e...
Sardarsingh Vs. Kishorilal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960MP221
H.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is a second Misc. appeal by the surety for the defendant under Order 38 Rule 2 C. P. C., from the concurrent decisions of the lower Courts, to realise from, him, on the strength of the security bond, the decretal amount payable by the) judgment-debtor respondent No. 2 to the decree-holder respondent No. 1.2. The facts for the most part are common ground and the question is only in regard to the interpretation of the security bond, and the application of Section 145 and Order 38 Rule 2 C. P. C. The special interest of this case is that the decree-holder, having failed by negligence to obtain a bond in terms of the rule, or in the standard form in appendix F (2) to the C. P, C., has to face the problem of establishing that the security bond, as worded, enables him to realise the decretal amount from the surety.3. The relevant facts are the following :Respondent No. 1 brought a suit against respondent No. 2 and took out a warrant of arrest before judgment where it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »