Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Firoz MeharuddIn Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP110; 1961CriLJ516
Shrivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund, on 11-4-1958 ordering the petitioner to leave India on the ground that he is a Pakistan citizen and has overstayed the period of his visa. Ten other similar petitions involving commonquestions of law were heard along with this petition. They are: S. No.Case No.Filed by.1.Misc. Pet. No. 290/1958Mohammad Murtaza Khan2.Misc. Pet. No. 61/1959Issab alias Yusuf3.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 39/1958Akbarkhan Alam Khan4.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 59/1958Maujmabibi & others5.Misc. Pet. No. 139/1957Kalloo s/o Noor Mohd.6.Misc. Pet. No. 206/1957Gulam Rasool7.Misc. Pet. No. 6/1958Mohammd Yusuf8.Misc. Pet. No. 168/1958Mohammad Abbas9.Misc. Pet. No. 70/1959Shabrati s/o Mangoo10.Misc. Pet. No. 371/1958Ghulam Mahmmmod KhanAll these petitions, except S. No. 3, are directed against the orders of the District Superintendent of Police or the Collector ...
Kalyandas Anantlal Vs. Gangabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP67
T.P. Naik, J.1. The order of this appeal shall also dispose of Misc. (Second) Appeal No. 40 of 1958 and Misc. (Second) Appeal No. 69 of 1958.2. For understanding the question involved in the three appeals, a few facts relevant for the purpose may shortly be stated. Sunderlal and three others, plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4, formed a Joint Hindu family. Kashiram, Champalal and Anant-lal (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) were members of another joint Hindu family. All the aforesaid members of the two joint families were partners in a partnership owning a Ginning and Pressing Factory at Khirkia (hereinafter called the partnership property).In execution of a decree against the joint Hindu family consisting of Sunderlal and three others (plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4), Gopaldas, Purshot-tam and Khatau (plaintiffs Nos. 5 to 7) purchased the Interest of Sunderlal and others in the partnership property. Thereafter, plaintiffs Nos. 5 to 7 as transferees of the interest of the first foui plaintiffs in the partnership p...
Jankibai Vs. Sarha and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP139
T.P. Naik, J. 1. This is second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant whose suit for the possession of a house situate in June Bilaspur Ward of Bilaspur town, more fully detailed in the plaint map, has been dismissed by the two Courts below.2. The suit house originally belonged to Bania who had gifted it absolutely to Mst Birawan by a registered gift deed Exh. D-5. Mst. Birawan bequeathed it to her husband's niece Mst. Manu and her sister's son Sarha by a will dated 10-3-1949 (Exh. D-3). The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the bequest conferred on the legatees the rights of joint tenants or the rights of tenants in common because if a joint tenancy was created, then in so far as one of the legatees viz. Mst. Manu had predeceased the testatrix, the whole legacy would devolve on Sarha, the only surviving legatee, and the plaintiff's claim would fail, while if tenancy in common was created, Mst. Manu's half share would fall into the residue of the testatrix's ...
Damodar Sharma and anr. Vs. Nandram Deviram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP345
Shiv Dayal, J.1. While protecting tenants against their eviction from residential and non-residential accommodation, the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act No. 23 of 1955 (hereinafter called the 1955 Act) permits suits for eviction in certain exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional grounds, e. g. default in payment of arrears of rent, causing of substantial damage, sub-letting, creating nuisance etc. are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (n) of Section 4, which is the prohibitory section. Under Clause (g), in the case of a residential accommodation, and under Clause (h), in the case of a non-residential accommodation, a landlord can sue for eviction of his tenant on the ground of his requirement. Section 4(h) runs thus:''4. No suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds;* * * * *(h) in the case of non-residential accommodation, that the landlord genuinely requires the accommodation ...
Prabhulal and anr. Vs. Lalaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP315
A.H. Khan, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against an order of remand made by the Additional District Judge, Morena.2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit in respect of certain dealings of the defendant recorded in his Khata. The defendant inter alia objected that in so far as the plaintiff had filed a suit earlier regarding some other items of the Khata, this suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court upheld this contention and dismissed the suit. oN appeal, the Additional District Judge, Morena, held that there was no splitting of the claim and remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings.3. The learned counsel, for the appellant relying upon illustration given under Order 2 Rule 2, contends that the present suit is. barred. But this argument overlooks the fact that according to the Explanation to Order 2 Rule 2, if successive claims arise out of the same obligation, they are d...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Somnath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC72(MP)
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State Government against the acquittal of the respondent Somnath of an offence under Section 8(1) read with Section 24(1) of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947-hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act.2. The respondent registered himself as a dealer under Section 8(3) of the Sales Tax Act on 20th September, 1950. He was carrying on business in grain and other articles before that date also. The prosecution case was that the respondent became liable to register himself as a dealer on 11th April, 1949, but he failed to do so. He carried on business in contravention of the provisions of section 8(1) of the Sales Tax Act during the period from 11th April, 1949, to 19th September, 1950, and thus rendered himself liable to prosecution. After obtaining the necessary sanction from the Sales Tax Commissioner on 27th March, 1959, the department filed a complaint in the court of First Class Magistrate.3. The defence was that the prosecutio...
Mst. Sulki W/O Sunderlal Vs. Mohanlal Adku and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP47; 1961CriLJ271; 1962MPLJ47
Shrivastava, J. 1. Appellant Mst. Sulki had filed a complaint against the respondents Mohanlal and Sheoratan in the Court of the Magistrate Second Class, Balaghat, under Section 355, Indian Penal Code. The respondents-have been acquitted, and the appellant has therefore-filed this appeal under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The complaint of the appellant was that on 25-11-1957 the respondents Mohanlal and Sheoratancame to her house and started abusing her without any rhyme or reason. When she asked them why they were abusing her, the respondent Sheoratan asked his son to bring a shoe from, his house. The son brought the shoe and gave it to the other respondent Mohanlal. Thereafter, the respondent Sheoratan told Mohanlal to strike the complainant with the shoe and threatened to kill him if he did not do so. Mohanlal accordingly struck the complainant with the shoe twice.3. The learned Magistrate held that the fact of assault had not been proved and therefore acquitted ...
S. Chatterji Vs. Dr. T.B. Sarwate and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP322
Naik, J. 1. This appeal raises practically the same questions of law and fact which arose in First Appeal No. 133 of 1956 decided by us today. The two suits had been tried together and were disposed of by a common judgment. The appeals were also heard together and as they raised common questions of law and fact, we are of opinion that for the reasons given by us in the other appeal, this appeal must also fail and be dismissed with costs. 2. The only material difference between that appeal and this is that in this case, the plaintiffs were induced to part with Rs. 3,966/- for the following classes of shares by the fraud of the defendants Nos. 1 to 11. Numbers & Classof shares.Rate at whichpurchased.Total price paidincluding registration oradmission fees.500 deferred shares of the face value of Re. 1/- eachat Rs. 3/8Rs. 1765/-200 Preference shares of the face value of Rs. 10/- each,at Rs. 11/-Rs. 2201/-3. The claim was contested by the same set of defendants and the appeal is also by the...
S. Chatterjee Vs. Dr. K.L. Bhave and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP323; [1962]32CompCas830(MP)
Naik, J.1. The plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 obtained a decree for damages in an action for the tort of deceit against defendants Nos. 1 to 10, the directors of the National Nutriments Ltd., a public limited company, and defendant No. 11, its agent. Defendant No. 1, S. Chatterjee, who besides being a director of the Company, was also the Managing Director of the Managing Agents of the Company, has come up in appeal.2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, so far as relevant for our purpose, was as follows. In the latter part of 1947, the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 'got printed an alluring booklet styled 'Report' on the progress of National Nutriments Ltd.'. The booklet was profusely illustrated, bore testimonials from eminent persons and contained statements as regards dividends and other mattery which conveyed to the reader an impression that the Company was in a very flourishing and prosperous condition and that it had immense promise for the future. In the beginning of October 194...
Nagar Palika Vs. Shrinandlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP212
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for possession of a piece of land, situated at Bina. The plaintiffs case is that the suit land is a part of Survey No. 648/1, belonging to him. It was alleged that in the month of October 1954 the defendant Municipality collected some stones on the land and threatened to take wrongful possession of it. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the disputed piece of land had become a public street as it bad been for more than 50 years as a passage without any interruption. Title was also claimed on the ground of adverse possession. Section 48 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act) was further pleaded as a bar to the suit.2. The trial Judge found that Khasra No. 648/ 1 was the absolute occupancy holding of the plaintiff. This finding has been affirmed by the first appellate Court. It has not been, and could not be, challenged before me. The trial Judge, ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »