Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Chhegalal Ramniwas Vs. Shyamlal Parmatma Swarup Merchants of Delhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP387
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. The present appeal involves the question with regard to the competency of a petition which has been submitted for execution of a decree of a Court in another State in the absence of rules under Section 40 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :--A decree for money was Passed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, on 5-5-1955. That decree was sent for execution to the District Court In-dore from where it was transferred to the Additional Civil Judge 2nd Class. Indore. Objection to this execution was raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor that in the absence of anv rales providing for the manner for such execution and the Court to which such decrees are to be sent for execution either in the State of Madhya Bha-rat or the present State of Madhya Pradesh the decree could not be executed by that Court that is the Court of Civil Judge 2nd Class, Indore. This contention found favour with the Court of first instance and it rejected...
Hajijiwakhan Vs. Gulabchand Harakchand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP2
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in a small cause suit from the order of the Small Cause Court. Indore setting aside an ex parte decree granted in his favour on an application by the defendant under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is urged that the order is not in accordance with law, on the following grounds (i) that the cause shown by the defendant should not have been considered sufficient; (ii) that security was accepted in lieu of cash deposit without a direction tothat effect on a prior application, thus contravening the condition in the proviso to Section 17(iii) that the security bond which purports to create a charge on the immovable property of the surety is invalid for want of registration.2. Ground No. (i):-- The defendant comes from a distance and he alleges that owing to an unforeseen accident, the bus that brought him to Indore, was late; having arrived sometime after the case was called out and disposed of ex parte...
Buddulal Goerlal Mahajan Vs. Shrikisan Chandmal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP57
Krishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant a constituent at Dhar, from a decree against him for the claim of the plaintiff a registered broker (or dalal) doing business at Indore, for compensation for the losses incurred by him on account of the defendant during forward transactions relating to 100 shares of theHukumchand Mills, 20 shares of the Malwa Mills and 200 bales of cotton, on account of extension (badlai) from the Maha Sudi 15, Samvat 2003 (6th February, 1947) to Phagun Sudi 15, Samvat 2003, and again to Chait Sudi 15, Samvat 2004 (4th April, 1947). While there is no controversy either about the liability or about the exact amount, in regard to the claim in respect of the losses in the transactions in cotton and the 20 Malwa shares, there are serious disputes in regard to the extension of the forward transaction on the 100 shares of the Hukumchand Mills. The points for decision generally are (i) whether the plaintiffs are really a Hindu joint family concern, or a joint...
Kirparam Chhotan Raot Vs. Smt. Kalibai W/O. Kriparam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP241; 1960CriLJ1093
ORDERP.R. Sharma, J. 1. This revision application arises out of the order dated the 7th of August, 1958 passed by the Magistrate First Class Bilaspur, directing the present applicant to pay arrears of maintenance,2. An order directing maintenance to be paid to the non-applicant at the rate of Rs. 12/ p.m. was passed against the present applicant on 16-5-1956. The first application for recovery of the arrears of maintenance was filed by Mst. Kalibai on 2-8-1956. The non-applicant could not be served throughout these proceedings. The application was eventually dismissed on 1-5-1957 for default in appearance on the part of Mst. Kalibai. Another application wad thereupon filed by her on 5-6-1957. The present applicant on being served with a notice raised an objection to the effect that he was willing to maintain the wife at his own house and there was, therefore, no just ground for her to refuse to five with him. It may be noted at this stage that the husband had by this time contracted a ...
Suraj NaraIn Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP303
A.H. Khan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable direction. 2. The petitioner has alleged that the Inspector of Schools, District Morena, vide his letter No. 3/(1)44/20028 dated 17th December 1954 (Anuex-ure 2) appointed him as a Craft Teacher on a pay, the scale of which was Rs. 40-3-70. In the letter of appointment it was said that the applicant, who was appointed as a Craft Teacher, shall not be taken in the general line (teaching line) and he was further told that he would not be allowed to appear in any examination. These were the conditions of his appointment. After his appointment as a Craft Teacher, he was asked to work in the general line as a Teacher at Vagwaj. The petitioner wrote to the Inspector of Schools that this was in breach of the conditions of his appointment. In spite of his protest he continued to be in the teaching line. He worked in the Middle School Bhesroli, Pargana Jau...
In Re: Sabir Ahmad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP318; 1960CriLJ1339
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge in a revision application by two servants of a motor transport company (the driver and conductor respectively) who were convicted under Sections 112 and 93(8) (Sic) of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to the non-appealable fines of Rs. 5/- each. The vehicle concerned was motor bus M. B. P. 1434 owned by one Dayabhai Patel) and covered at the relevant time by a temporary permit. When they were stopped by the Traffic Inspector, it was found that the driver who was driving it, had no valid driving licence. He had probably applied for one, he had been given a temporary permit under Rule 14 (i), but on that date, that is, 28-4-1957, its term had expired. But the licence had not come on the date of the offence. 2. There was another offence as well. The permitted capacity of the bus was 42, but at that time, the Vehicle was carrying 51 persons. In the Magistrate's Court, the defence was that the driving licence or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›