Madhya Pradesh Court October 1961 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.
indore Soap Factory Vs. National Industries Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP153
Krishnan, J.1. Though the parties are different, the main question for consideration in both the appeals by the respective judgment-debtors in the execution cases, is identical viz. whether in the absence of rules under Section 40, C. P. C. a decree transferred from a Court in another State can at all be executed by the transferee Court, as the case may be, the District Court itself, receiving the decree on transfer under Order 21 Rule 5 C. P. C. or the subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction to which a District Court in its own turn transfers the same under Order 21 Rule 5 C. P. C,2. This question has been answered by the judgments of two single bench judgments of this Court in Chhegalal Ramniwas v. Shyamlal Parmatma Swarup, 1960 Jab LJ 612 : (AIR 1960 Madh Pra 387), and following it in the judgment dated 29th July, 1960 in Civil Second Appeal No, 103 of 1957, Maganlal v. Mercury Paint and Varnish Co. Ltd., Civil Second Appeal No. 142 of 1956, Ganatra Hardware Stores v. K. Kurbanh...
Maniram Budha Chamar and ors. Vs. Pannalal Motiram Chamar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP275; 1962MPLJ115
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by plaintiffs Pannalal and Kanhaiyalal Chamars against the 12 defendants who also belong to the same caste and are residents of the villages Bijalpur and Mundi for permanent injunction restraining them from removing the dead bodies of the caste which die in the four villages of Bijapur. Hukmakhedi, Garabadi and Mundi on the ground that they had an exclusive right to remote the carcasses of the cattle dying in those villages and to secure their hides. The right is claimed by the plaintiffs through their ancestor Punja, They trace their descent thus: PUNJA | Dipa | Bondar | Teja | Motiram _________________________|___________________________ | |Motilal KanhaiyalalThey allege enjoyment of the said right for the last five generations and more, According to them plaintiffs' father Motiram had filed a suit against the father of defendants 1, 2 and 3 and eight other persons of their caste for a declaration as to the: same right...
Ramchandra Jeetmal and ors. Vs. Jeetmal Ganpat Porwal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP380; 1962MPLJ323
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order refusing to appoint a receiver.2. The facts necessary for the consideration of the question raised in this appeal are as follows:3. Petitioner Ramchandra along with his two minor sons Daulal and Kailash filed the present suit against Jeetmal and Ramniwas the father and the third son of Ramchandra for partition of joint family property. A preliminary decree for partition of certain items of property was passed by the trial Court on 24-1-1959 and a Commissioner was appointed to take accounts and the property in possession of the defendants. Against the preliminary decree thus passed the defendants went up in appeal and the plaintiffs filed cross-objections. The appeal 33 well as the cross-objections are still pending. On being moved by the defendants for a stay of further proceeding in the suit subsequent to the preliminary decree the High Court directed withholding of the passing of the final decree in the case until the dispo...
indra Singh and Sons Private Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP128
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a direction to the opponents for specification of certain goods in the certificate of registration issued to the petitioner under Section 7(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The petitioner is a joint stock limited liability private company carrying on the business of mining coal and trading in coal and coke. It is the owner of the West Chirimari Colliery situated in Sarguja district. The petitioner-company applied for registration as a dealer under Section 7 of the Act. In the application for registration, which the petitioner made in 1957 in Form A prescribed by the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, the goods to be purchased by the petitioner as a dealer in the course of inter-state trade were first specified as ''explosives, lubricants, fuel, timber, machinery, colliery stores etc., as per list attached.' These goods were stated as for use in production...
Mohammad Khan Vs. Suratsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP137; 1962MPLJ185
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the Courts below.2. The following facts are not in dispute. The respondent Suratsingh sold Khasra Nos. 60, 65 and 66, area 2.06 acres, of village Banwar, Tahsil and District Damoh, to the appellant for Rs. 180/- by a registered sale deed, dated 26-10-1947. The appellant-plaintiff was placed in possession of the lands. In April, 1950, Nathusingh and Raghubar, claiming to be owners of the lands, dispossessed the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed a suit against them which was dismissed on 22-1-1955. It was held in that suit that the lands belonged to Nathusingh and Raghubar and that the respondent, who had sold them to the appellant, had no title over them. On 21-1-1958 the present suit was instituted for recovery of the amount of consideration of the sale deed.3. The suit was resisted by the defendant on several grounds which it is not necessary to state for the purpose of th...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abdul Kadir Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP125; 1963CriLJ442a
Golvalkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the State directed against the order dated 12-4-1961 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begumganj, acquitting the accused under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the Station. House Officer was absent on that date.2. The accused was prosecuted by the police under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The charge-sheet lodged by the police was treated as a complaint since the offence complained of was non-cognisable and the case was triable as a summons case. Accordingly the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused as provided by Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as the Station House Officer being the complainant was absent on that dale.3. It is urged on behalf of the State that the charge-sheet against the accused even though with respect to a non-cognizable offence could not be treated as a complaint attracting the provisions of Section 247, Criminal Procedural Code, and h...
Bhuralal S/O Kaluram Marwada Vs. Bhiriya S/O Roopsingh Deshwali and an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP210
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court in exercise of its powers under Order 41 Rule 23 Civil Procedure Code.2. The circumstances leading to the present appeal are as follows:-Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a house on the strength of a sale-deed dated 13-1-1954 executed by the defendant in his favour. The defence to the plaintiff's suit was that the sale-deed had not been executed as to operate as a sale-deed. It was executed as a sequel to another transaction of agreement to sale which the defendant entered into with the plaintiff regarding the sale of his land in Mouja Pipalgaon Pargana Kasrawad in plaintiff's favour for a consideration of Rs. 850/-. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 500/- towards this agreement of sale and the defendant executed the sale-deed in question for this amount of Rs. 500/- in respect of the other transaction so that he may not back out from it. The transaction of sale of house was not i...
Gulam Ali S/O. Abdulali Bohara Vs. Vishwanath Balwant Mahakal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP308
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 151, C. P. Code for restoration of the revision petition dismissed lor default by an order dated 7-7-1961. 2. The revision petition was fixed for hearing on 6-7-1961 after reopening of the court after the summer vacation on 26th June 1961. The case had been listed according to Rules for that day. As nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner it was adjourned to 7th and listed accordingly. On that day too neither the petitioner nor his counsel took any notice of the adjourned date. When, therefore the case came up on for hearing on 7-7-1961 it was dismissed for default. The present petition for restoration was submitted by shri E. Y. Paul the counsel for the petitioner. An affidavit was filed by the learned counsel in support of this petition. In the affidavit it was stated that the counsel had gone to madras for the summer vacation and consequently he failed to inquire about the probability of the case-coming up for hearing in ...
Gokul Prasad and ors. Vs. M.M. Sohani and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP126
Dixit, C.J.1. In this case the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit them to the Basic Training School, Betul.2. According to the petitioners they had applied for admission to the School for the session commencing on 1st June 1961 and ending on 30th April 1962, that they possessed the requisite qualifications, and that the respondent No. 1, the District Inspector of Schools, Betul, by his order passed in May-June 1961 admitted them into the School and thereafter they had actually joined it and attended classes for about a month. They further say that on 1st July 1961 a notice was displayed on the notice-board of the School by the respondent No. 3, the Superintendent of the School, saying that according to the orders of the respondent No. 2, the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Narbada Division, the admission of the petitioners and other sixtyfour students had been cancelled. The petitioners contend that this cancellation order is wholly illegal a...
Dr. S.C. Barat and anr. Vs. Hari Vinayak Pataskar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP180
Dixit, C.J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing by a suitable writ an order made by the respondent No. 1, the Chancellor of the Jabalpur University, appointing the respondent No. 4, Shri Avadh Bihari Mishra, as Vice-Chancellor, and for the issue of suitable directions to the Chancellor for the appointment of Vice-Chancellar of the University in accordance with law. Shri Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor, has raised the preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding whatever or issue any direction under Article 226 whatever, against the Chancellor. The objection rests on Article 361 and has been raised as the Governor of the State is the Chancellor of the University.2. Before stating the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and examining their tenability, it is necessary to refer briefly to the facts and circumstances in which this petition has been filed. Under Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »