Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Narayanprasad Rai Gokulprasad Rai Vs. Ghanshyamlal Alias Shukhlal Jawa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP62
Shrivastava, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of a single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 745 of 1955, decided on 8-7-1958.2. The appellant had filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of Rs. 4000/- on the basis of a pro-note, dated 23-11-1946 Ex. P-l.. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the execution of the pro-note, which was taken on his behalf by his father Gokul Prasad Rai. At the tune of filing of the suit also, the plaintiff was a minor and his father Gokul Prasad Rai acted as his next friend.3. The defendant (respondent) admitted the execution of the pro-note, but stated that it was only for Rs. 400/- and this was the only amount which he had received as consideration. The defendant stated that the pro-note had been materially altered by changing the amount of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 4000/- and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for recovery of anything on the basis of the pro-note.4. Th...
Narottamdas Harjiwandas Vs. P.B. Gowarikar, Inspector, Minimum Wages, ... Overruled
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP182; [1961(2)FLR380]; (1961)ILLJ442MP
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 78, 81, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 101, 118, 150 and 152 all of 1960.2. The petitioners in these twenty-One petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, who are all owners of concerns in the Mahakoshal region of Madhya Pradesh engaged in the manufacture and sale of bidis, challenge the legality of notification No. 307-XVI-58 published in the extraordinary Gazette dated the 30th December 1958 notifying the minimum rates of wages in respect of employment in tobacco (including bidi making) manufactory.The petitioner in each of the eases seeks an appropriate writ or direction prohibiting the opponent State from giving effect to the said notification, and a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the authority constituted under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing him to pay the difference between the wages actually p...
Puny Kalu and anr. Vs. Sankar Kalu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP348
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application by the defendant in a suit in which at the stage of preparing the judgment, the Civil Judge has suo motu ordered that 'the plaintiff would suffer injustice, if certain evidence consisting of preexisting public documents were not brought on record'. Accordingly the judgment wag stayed and the plaintiff was permitted to produce them into evidence. Obviously the defendant should get 'an opportunity to amend his written statement, recall and cross examine the plaintiffs witnesses in regard to the new material and adduce evidence of his own, to counter what has been permitted to be brought on the record at this stage by the plaintiff. He is going to get this opportunity and in any case it is not his grievance here. The grievance is that at this late stage, the Civil Judge should not, acting suo motu, have permitted this new material to come into the record.2. Some rulings have been cited following the well known principle that parties to liti...
Dhansingh Khadaksingh Raghubansi Vs. Ramsaran Dariyao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP305; 1961CriLJ646
Dixit, C.J.1. In this reference by a Single Judge the question raised is as to the applicability of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a witness who is stated to have given false evidence in a judicial proceeding and against whom no proceedings under Section 479-A of the Code were taken.2. The matter arises thus. The opponent Ramsaran while giving evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit denied his relationship with two of the plaintiffs. After the disposal of the suit the petitioner Dhansingh, who was one of the defendants, presented an application under Section 476 for a complaint being filed against Ramsaran in respect of an offence under Section 193 I. P. C. alleging that the statements made by Ramsaran denying his relationship with the plaintiffs were false.No action of any kind under Section 479-A had been taken against Ramsaran at the time of the delivery of the judgment in the suit. The trial Judge rejected the application as in his opinion it was not expedi...
Subhadrabai Sukhram and ors. Vs. the Malwa United Mills Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP349
V.R. Newaskar, J. 1. The Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Indore directed R. 3500/-to be paid by the contractor Nathulal to the heirs of one Sukhram Carpenter who died while working during the construction or repairs of a building used as a canteen for the workers of Malva United Mills Limited. The premises of the canteen which were being constructed or repaired belonged to the Mills and one Nathulal was given a contract for that work. Nathulal engaged Sukhram to do some carpenter's job. On 21-7-1955 while he was engaged in fixing the wooden frame for the roof of the building a parapet fell upon his back and seriously injured him. He was removed to the hospital where he died on 23-7-1955, The heirs of Sukhram submitted a petition for compensation and impleaded both the contractor as well as the Mills.2. The claim was opposed by Nathulal on the ground that Sukhram was not a 'workman' within the definition of the term as defined in the workmen's Compensation Act and consequ...
Munnilal Shyamle and anr. Vs. Bhaiyalal Hazari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1962MP34; 1962MPLJ142
Shrivastava J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed against the judgment of a single Judge of this Court (Chaturvedi J.) in Second Appeal No. 278 of 1957.2. The suit out of which that second appeal arose was filed by respondents 1 and 2 (Bhaiyalal and Bhajni) against the appellants Munnilal and Ramdayal as defendants 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 Bharosa as defendant No. 3. For convenience we shall refer to respondents 1 and 2 as the plaintiffs and the appellants Munnilal and Ramdayal as the defendants.3. The subject-matter of the suit was 29.29 acres of land, situated in Khiria Khawas, Tahdil Rebli District Sagar, as also a house in that village. These properties belonged to Bharosa (respondent No. 3). On 30-9-1953 he contracted to sell these properties to the defendants. On 3-10-1953 the defendants gave a notice to the plaintiffs and others that they were purchasing the suit properties from Bharosa. On 2-12-1953 they filed a suit for specific performance against Bharosa and tha...
Sukaloo and anr. Vs. Punau
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP176
Shrivastava, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 has been filed against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court, delivered on 15-7-1958. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent Punau against the appellants Sukaloo and Mst. Dukala for recovery of damages for removal of crop from the suit filed for the year 1950-51.2. It is not disputed that the field in dispute belonged to one Bhikmanga. He married Mst. Sukwaro in churi form. At that time, the respondent Punau was less than a year old and he came to live along with his mother with Bhikmanga, who brought him up as his own son. Bhikmanga died in 1947 leaving behind him his widow Mst. Sukwaro, who died in 1951. Appellant No. 1 Sukaloo is Bhiknianga's father's brother's grandson and appellant No. 2 Mst. Dukala is his wife.3. The plaintiff's case was that on 8-2-1948 Bhikmanga had executed a sale-deed in respect of the suit land in his favour for Rs. 4000/- and had delivered possession of the sam...
Rajaram Dhaniram Vs. Ramswaroop Sunderlal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP56
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent instituted by the appellant against the respondents on the ground that the defendants did not pay rent to the plaintiff nor did they vacate the premises in spite of notice. The trial Judge passed a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent in favour of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court decided all the points raised before it in favour of the plaintiff, but dismissed the suit? for ejectment by giving relief to the defendants under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act because they had deposited rent with the written statement and continued to deposit recurring rent in the appellate Court.2. The plaintiff's grievance is that Section 114 of the T. P. Act must be deemed to be suspended so long as the Accommodation Control Act, which is a special enactment is in force. This, contention is untenable because provisions of the T. P. Act have not been abrogated or pro tanto repealed by the Acc...
Ganesh Prasad Bhurelal and ors. Vs. Dulichand Girdharilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP99
ORDERP.K. Tare, J.1. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is by the plaintiff against the decree, dated, 25-11-1959, passed by Shri S. P. Hakim, First Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, empowered under Section 9 of the M. P. Courts Act, 1958, in the Civil Suit No. 630 of 1959.2. The applicant filed a suit against the non-applicant for recovery of Rs. 843/-, alleging that the applicant was to purchase grain for the non-applicant and to sell the same as an adtiya. The applicant accordingly purchased some grain and sold it and made entries in the account books. According to the applicant the accounts were open, mutual and current. On the basis of the said accounts, an amount of Rs. 843/- was due. The cause of action was said to have occurred on the Dewali of the years 1953-54 and 1955-56. The suit was filed on 3-10-1958.3. The non-applicant's defence was that the claim was barred by time, as there was no open, mutual and current account. The suit was, ...
Bisanchand Lalchand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961MP220
ORDERP.K. Tare, J. 1. This is plaintiff's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act p.gainst the decree dated 28-10-1959, passed by Shri S.M. Afzal, First Additional District Judge, Durg empowered under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Courts Act, 1958, in Small Cause Suit No. 95 of 1958.2. The plaintiff-applicant was a consignee under a railway receipt, dated 29-6-1957, in respect of certain goods dispatched from Mathura and intended to be sent to Bhilai Railway Station in the district of Durg. The plaintiff sued for damages for non-delivery of the said consignment.3. The non-applicant raised various pleas in defence which wore all negatived by the learned Small Cause Judge. The only plea of the defendants that was upheld by the Small Cause Court was in respect of the defect in the notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Judge, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the sole ground that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »