Madhya Pradesh Court January 1962 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.
Ganpati Chintaman Vs. Shiv Ram Damodar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP209
ORDERP.R. Sharma, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order passed on 6-6-1961 by the Addl. District Judge Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1961 whereby he set aside the order dated the 27th of March, 1961 of the Civil Judge Second Class Gwalior refusing to issue an order of temporary injunction.2. In a litigation between the present applicant Ganapati, who is the daughter's son of one Govinda Bhatt, and Damodar Bhatt, the father of Shivram, the plaintiff, in the present suit, it was held that Damodar Bhatt had gone in adoption to one Bhikhu Bhatt and that the present applicant Ganapati was entitled to possession of the house in dispute. Thereafter Shivram filed the present suit for declaration of his title to the house in dispute and a permanent injunction restraining the present applicant Ganapati from executing the decree passed in his favour by the High Court in the former litigation. An application by the plaintiff for issue of a temporary injunction restrainin...
Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1962MP340; [1962(5)FLR475]
ORDERP.R. Sharma, J.1. This is an application for review of the judgment and decree passed by me in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1960. 2. The sole ground on which this review application is urged is that Shri Shah, by whom the application under Section 66 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 was entertained and tried, was not a properly constituted Court under the provisions of Section 74 read with Section 96 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. In order to appreciate the points raised by Shri Mishra in the course of his arguments a few facts might first be mentioned. The Employees' State Insurance Act was, with the exception of certain Sections (which had already been brought into force) brought into force in certain areas of the former State of Madhya Bharat by a Notification issued by the Central Government which was published in Madhya Bharat Government Gazette dated 22-1-1955. It was stated therein that the provisions of Chapters IV,...
Kanhaiyalal Manilal Desai Vs. Yusuf Ali Alimohammad Bohara and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1964MP221
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. Facts material are that Hussainbhai Taherbhai obtained a decree against Usutali who was the principal debtor and also against his surety Hakimuddin in Civil Suit No. 111 of 1945-46 for Rs. 1371/-and interest. The decree-holder on his part was indebted to two creditors Saifuddin and Abbasbhai each of whom filed a suit against him. Saifuddin in his suit obtained an order for attachment before judgment in respect of the decree which Hussainbhai Taherbhai had secured in Civil Suit No. Ill of 1945-41. This suit of Saifuddin was decreed for Rs. 345-5.0. Abbas Bhai also obtained decree for Rs. 601/- after securing attachment of the very same decree in civil Suit No. 111 of 1945-46.2. On 28-8-1953 Hakimuddin the surety in Civil Suit No. 111/1945-46 paid Rs. 601/- to Abbasbhai in discharge of his decretal dues as the decree of Hussainbhai Taherbhai against him was under attachment. He secured a receipt of complete satisfaction...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ch. Jawahirlal Batai Sao and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1962MP348; 1962MPLJ692
Bhargava, J.1. This first appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against whom and Maharaja Ramanul Saran Singh Deo, a suit was brought by the plaintiffs as owners of the joint family firm 'Hiralal and Brothers' functioning at Ambikapur for the recovery of Rs. 87,200/- on the basis of a promissory-note, dated 27-9-1947, for Rs. 80,000/- carrying interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. The trial Court passed a decree for the entire amount claimed in the suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh and discharged defendant No. 2 who was the Ruler of Sarguja Stale from the obligation to pay the amount of the promissory-note holding that the pro-note was executed by defendant No. 2 in connection with a liability which was the liability of the Sarguja State and not his individual liability. The State of Madhya Pradesh being dissatisfied with this judgment and decree has preferred this first appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that in the year 1935 or thereabout, Hiralal ...
Radhakishan S/O R.S. Nathulal Vs. Smt. Narainibai W/O Ramkishan and an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP191; 1962MPLJ860
Krishnan, J.1. This is a first appeal by one of the defendants (defendant No. 2) against whom a decree for Rs. 11,500/- and interest has been passed, presumably, in accordance with Section 35 second part and 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the endorser of a dishonoured cheque in the ostensible capacity of the executor of the original holder, without any express limitation of the liability. No decree has been passed against defendant No. 1 (res. No. 2) the drawer of the cheque, as the Court accepted his contention that the suit as framed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was bad for nonjoinder of all the heirs of the holder of the cheque. There is no appeal by the plaintiff praying for a decree against the drawer (defendant No. 1).2. The facts are practically common ground but are an unusual combination of circumstances raising interesting questions:(i) Whether the endorser would be liable under Section 35 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when he endorsed it in favour and at t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›