Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhuresingh Chandansingh Rajput
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP375
Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated the 13th of September 1958 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1957 whereby he set aside the order of conviction and sentence under Sections 451 and 354 I. P. C., passed against the present respondent by the Magistrate First Class Khilchipur in Criminal Case No. 17 of 1957 and ordered him to be acquitted of both offences.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on the night of the 12th of January, 1957 at about 8-15 P.M. the present respondent is alleged to have trespassed into the house of one Bhagwanlal constable at Khilchipur and on entering therein indecently assaulted his wife Mst. Satywati, who immediately raised a hue and cry. One Brijmohan on hearing her Outcry went to the house of Bhagwanlal but found its door closed from inside. Brijmohan thereupon went and informed Bhagwanlal that the present respondent Bhuresingh head constable was inside his hou...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. Keshodas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP46; 1962MPLJ15
ORDERShiv Dayal, J. 1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the Trial Judge holding that the suit was bad for multifariousness. He gave the plaintiff an option to elect one of the two defendants against whom he wanted to continue the suit2. The allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff Kanhaiyalal purchased the suit house in which Keshodas and Badshahmal, the two defendants, had been residing as tenants of the vendor. The plaintiff gave them notices of eviction, but they did not vacate. Paragraph 7 of the plaint deals exclusively with the cause of action against the first defendant while paragraph 8 dealt with the cause of action against the second defendant. The plaintiff admitted that he was unaware of the date of the commencement of their tenancy. Defendant No. 1 was paying Rs. 2/8/- per month and the defendant No. 2, Rs. 10/- per month as rent. Different reliefs were claimed against the two defendants separately.3. Shrj Gupta, learned counsel for the plainti...
Dhal Singh Kushal Singh Vs. Anandrao Kakde
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP378
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. Dhal Singh instituted a suit against Anand Ran Kakde for the recovery of Rs. 3410/-an the Court of the Civil Judge First Class Gwalior (Civil Suit No. 89 of 1956). On September 20, 1957 an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. On October 8, 1958 the defendant made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the decree was obtained by fraud and without due service of any summons on him and that he camp to know of the decree on October 3, 1958, when in execution of the decree the Nazir came to his house for attachment of his properties. The application for setting aside the decree was resisted by the plaintiff. The defendant filed an affidavit and the plaintiff cross-examined him.In rebuttal the plaintiff produced Babukhan postman, who stated to have taken a registered envelope to the defendant and the defendant refused to accept it, whereupon he returned it with an endorsement to that effect. The learned trial ...
Umrao Khan Akbar Khan Vs. Waheed Khan Abdul Majeed
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP388
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an execution matter. The lower appellate court has dismissed the application for execution us barred by time.2. The short facts are that in execution ot his decree the appellant at first got some move-ables of the judgment debtor attached and then applied for attachment and sale of his house, to which the respondent objected. But the objection was overruled (execution No. 18 of 1949). The judgment debtor took an appeal against it. In. the meanwhile the house was sold. The highest bid was of the decree holder. Oh January 10, 1950, the Nazir knocked down the sale in anticipationof its acceptance by the court. However, on February 8, 1950 the appellate court stayed further proceedings of sale. Eventually the appeal was dismissed on September 29, 1950. An appeal was then preferred by the judgment-debtor to the High Court of Madhya Bharat but it was dismissed on December 4, 1953.3. The present application for execution was made on September ...
Shantaram Govindram Vs. State Through Police and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP1; 1961CriLJ86
Krishnan, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Single Judge to this Divisional Bench on a point of law, namely, whether under Section 520 Cr. P.C., the Sessions Court can hear an appeal from an order passed by the magistrate under Section 517 Cr. P.C., disposing of the property brought before him during the trial of a criminal case. This question has to a considerable measure, been answered in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in Nandu v. Dhasada, 1957 M.P.L.J 67, clarifying the earlier judgment of the NagpUr High Court in Ibrahim v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 Nag 33. It appears that the Madhya Pradesh judgment was not placed before the learned Single Judge. Anyway, the reference having been made, it will be convenient to deal with the questions involved.2. In a criminal case (No. 252 of 1956) before the First Class Magistrate, Kannod, started on an information by Gulabchand (opposite party No. 2) eight persons were on trial and were ultimately acquitted. The ju...
Narbadashankar Manoharlal Jaiswal Vs. Jamnabai Manoharlal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP21; [1963]47ITR44(MP)
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an application by the defendant in a suit pending before the Civil Judge Ujjain, praying that his order admitting into evidence certified copies of four documents (two by the defendant and two others by his father) filed before the Income Tax Officer should be set aside as contravening Section 54(1) Income-tax Act and Section 76 of the Evidence Act. Normally, a question like this would have been left to be considered during the appeal, if any, filed by the aggrieved party in time. But in the present case, however, the parties feel that this evidence alone might de-cide the suit, the defendant fearing of course, that once this is admitted, the suit may be decreed against him.The trial Court has followed the view taken by the Nagpur High Court in Buchibai v. Nagpur University, AIR 1946 Nag 377 which is to some extent in conflict with the one taken by the Calcutta High Court in Promatha Nath v. Nirode Chandra, AIR 1940 Cal 187 and recently followed by Patn...
Hiralal and ors. Vs. Firm Shriram Surrajbhan Glass Bangle Merchants an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP15
A.H. Khan, J. 1. The Firm of Shri Ram Sooraj Bhan (creditors) presented an application against Gaya Prasad and Banshidhar son of Pancham Lal (debtors on 6-4-53 for their adjudication as insolvent under Section 9 of the Insolvency Act. In para No. 4 of the petition, the following acts of insolvency were stated to have been committed: 1. That the debtors have suspended their business and are secluding themselves so as to deprive creditors of the means of communicating with them. 2. That the debtors have not paid their debts and have told them that they have nothing to pay. 3. That on 19-1-1953, they mortgaged a house to Hiralal, Tota Ram and Dwarka Prasad (the appellants) for Rs. 27500/-.4. That on 19-1-1953, the debtors executed a release deed of another property in favour of the appellants on the ground that it was purchased Benami for the appellants. 2. The prayer was that the debtors be adjudged insolvent and the two transfers be set aside as being fraudulent transactions. 3. The deb...
Pravinbhai Uttamrao Reshamwalla and ors. Vs. Nalinikant Kishandas Bani ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP93
K.L. Pandey, J.1. The plaintiff Mst. Gitabai filed this appeal against the reversing decree of the lower appeal Court by which her suit under Order 21, Rule 103, C. P. C.. for declaration of her title to occupancy plot khasra No. 73, area 5-13 acres, of village Ner in Burhanpur tahsil was dismissed. Mst. Gitabai died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal representatives were, therefore, brought on record.2. Dhirajlal, a Gujrati Bania, held the disputed plot as an occupancy tenant. One Mst. Bhimabai claimed to be his widow, although the lower Courts have found that she was only his concubine. Dhirajlal had leased out the disputed plot to Chindhu (defendant 4) for 4 years, from 1948-49 to 1951-52. Dhirajlal died on 4th October, 1948 leaving behind him surviving Mst. Bhimabai a sister Mst. Gitabai, (plaintiff), a predeceased sister's son Kishandas (defendant 2) and his son Nalinikant (defendant 1). On 3rd March 1952, Mst. Gitabai leased out the disputed plot to Daulat (defendan...
Shri Abdul Salam Vs. Abdul Khalik Abdul Samad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP351; (1962)IILLJ239MP
Dixit, C.J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1959.2. These two petitions are by the managing partner of a Public Transport Company, Seoni, who is an employer as defined in Section 2,(11) of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The respondent Abdul Khalik in Miscellaneous Petition No. 30 of 1959 was employed by the company as a conductor. Bashiruddin, respondent No. 1, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1959 was also similarly employed. Abdul Khalik's services were terminated from 1st June, 1957 after giving him one month's notice. Bashiruddin's services were also dispensed with on 24th March, 1957 and he was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice.Thereupon, the two conductors filed applications under Section 16 of the Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Jabslpur, for reinstatement claiming back wages. The Assistant Labour Commissioner found that the services of the conductors had been terminated ...
Mohammed Refique Vs. S.M. Pagnis, District Judge and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1960MP369
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of the District Judge, Bhind, requiring the Collector of Bhind to recover the costs of a case as arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act, (Act No. 1 of 1890).2. The petitioner was a High Court pleader of the former Kurwai State. On the creation of Madhya Bharat, in which Kurwai State was merged, the petitioner applied to the High Court for the grant of a license to practice in the Courts of the Madhya Bharat. His petition was rejected by the High Court, and, against that order when the petitioner went in appeal to the Supreme Court, his appeal was dismissed with costs by the Supreme Court, as well. After the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the Senior Deputy Registrar of the Madhya Bharat High Court sent a (requisition?) to the District Judge, Bhind, to arrange for the recovery of the costs, enclosing a copy of the Bill of costs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›