Madhya Pradesh Court December 1960 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.
Lal Bhargavendra Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1962MP257
Shrivastava, J. 1. This judgment governs the disposal ofanother appeal (First Appeal No. 99 of 1957) inwhich similar questions of law arise for decision.2. The appellant in the, instant case is an adopted son of the Ruler of Nagod. On 7-3-1948, the Ruler granted a cash allowance of Rs. 650/- per month to the appellant for maintenance. The allowance was hereditary. On 1-5-1949 the amount was increased to Rs. 750/-. Later on 28-10-1949 the allowance was reduced to Rs. 530/- per month by the Raj Pramukh for the lifetime of the appellant only. This was confirmed by the President on 24-9-1951, The appellant brought the present suit claiming that the reduction of his allowance was illegal and ultra vires. He claimed arrears for 3 years and 2 months.3. In the connected appeal, the plaintiff is the brother of the Ruler of Kothi. He claimed that an allowance of Rs. 300/- per month was granted to him by the Ruler on 21-12-1947. The allowance was reduced to Rs. 100/- by the State of Vindhya Prade...
Badri Bhikaram Vs. Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corpor ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP256
A.H. Khan, J. 1. The appellant, who is a Jobber in the J. C. Mills sustained an injury. The appellant was covered under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. He was examined by the Medical Board constituted under the 'Employees' State Insurance Act and on 9-5-57, the Medical Board held that he had incurred no liability. Against! this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appeal Tribunal, alleging that his thumb and two fingers of the right hand have been injured, whereby his earning capacity had been reduced by 85 p.c. The Appeal Tribunal held that the appellant had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 6 per cent. The appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the Appeal Tribunal has filed this appeal to High Court under Section 82 of Employees' State Insurance Act (Act No. XXXIX of 1948). 2. Mr. Diwan, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent. After hearing the counsel of both the parties, I am of the opinion tha...
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Motilal Dhariwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP333
Shrivastava, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the defendant in Civil Suit No. 2-B of 1958 against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, passed on 25-3-1960 dismissing its application for staying the trial of the suit under Section 34 of the Act.2. The plaintiff alleged that two previous contracts between the parties were settled on 26-9-1957 and replaced by a new contract and the defendant agreed to supply cloth on the terms contained in the new contract. At that time, the defendant had also agreed to pay compensation in respect of 54 bales of cloth which were not supplied under the earlier contracts. The suit is for recovery of damages for breach of the contract, dated 26-9-1957.3. According to the defendant, two contracts were entered into on 28-5-1957 by the parties according to which it agreed to supply cloth to the plaintiff. These contracts contained Clause 21 as follows :'All dispute...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Shyammohan Laxminarayan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP244
A.H. Khan, J.1. The facts leading to this appeal in short are that the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced on 25-1-1957. It is admitted that 26th and 27th January, 1957 were public holidays. After the reopening of the Courts the judgment-debtor applied for copy of the judgment which was given to him in four days. He filed the appeal on 1-3-57. This appeal after excluding the days spent in obtaining a copy i.e. four days is admittedly beyond time if period of limitation is computed from 26th January 1957, and on this ground the learned District Judge, Gwalior, has dismissed it.2. The question for decision in this case is whether in computing the period of limitation, two days i.e. 26th and 27th January on which the courts admittedly remained closed, because of the public holidays, should be excluded or not. It seems there is a conflict of judicial opinion on the point. On the one hand the view taken in Puttulal v. Bhagwan Dass, AIR 1938 All 106 and Subramanyan v. N. Narasimham, A...
Harkaran Ghasiram Agarwal Vs. Champalal Chhotelal Mahajan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1962MP22
K.L. Pandey, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the reversing decree of the lower appeal Court for rendition of account of an unregistered and dissolved partnership. 2. The Forest Department gave to one Dhannalal a forest contract for cutting and taking away in the year 1955 roosa grass from the Jogibeda circle of Singhaji Range in Nimar District. That grass is used for extracting roosa oil which is a valued commercial commodity. The plaintiff alleged that he entered into a partnership with the defendant for the purpose of cutting roosa grass from the aforesaid Jogibeda circle and extracting roosa oil therefrom, acquired the contract from Dhannalal and actually worked it in partnership but the defendant, in disregard of the terms of partnership, sold away the oil extracted without the plaintiff's consent and did not render account. The defendant denied that he entered into any partnership with the plaintiff and claimed that he worked the forest contract merely as ag...
Shrikrishan Moolchand Vs. Deokinandan Sardharam and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP314
K.L. Pandey, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff 1 is directed against the affirming decree of the lower appeal Court by which his claim for recovery of a loan, together with interest, amounting in all to Rs. 1,500/- from the defendants 1 and 2 was dismissed on the ground that appeal was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.2. There was an unregistered partnership of Shrikishan (plaintiff 1), Gopikishan (father of plaintiffs 2 and 3) and Bawalram called Bawalram Moolchand which, it was claimed, advanced, on 19th September, 1952, a loan of Rs. 1,200/- to the defendants 1 and 2. On 17th September 1955, Shrikishan alone filed the suit in his own name impleading Bawalram and the heirs of Gopikishan (who was already dead) as defendants because they did not agree to join as co-plaintiffs. However, during the pendency of the suit, the heirs of Gopikishan were, at their own request, transposed as plaintiffs 2 and 3.3. Upon contest, the Court of first instance dismissed the claim...
Mst. Saraswatibai and ors. Vs. Govindrao Keshavrao Mahajan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP145
Pandey, J. 1. This revision has come up before us in pursuance of the following order of Bhutt, C. J. :'As the decision o a Division Bench of this Court in Balaji v. Gopal, 25 Nag LR 94 : (AIR 1929 Nag 148) is likely to come up for consideration, this revision shall be heard by a Full Bench.'2. The facts of the case giving rise to the question, which necessitated a reference to a Full Bench, may be briefly stated. In Execution Case No. 435 of 1955 pending in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Burhanpur, a house of the judgment-debtor was attached and put to sale. The auction-purchaser paid the price on 20th August 1957. Before that date, three other execution applications against the same judgment-debtor were made in that Court. In two of these cases, (No. 14 of 1955 and No. 438 of 1955), there is a prayer only for rateable distribution of the assets held in Execution Case No. 435of 1955.In the third case (No. 2070 of 1955), the relief claimed is attachment of immoveable property of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›