Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
In Re: Bisram Punau Ganda Kotwar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ820; 1963MPLJ143
Shiv Dayal, J.1. One Bisroo filed a complaint against Bisram contemner No, I under Sections 497 and 498 of the Penal Code in the Court of Mr. M.P. Raturi, Judge-Magistrate, Mahasamund. However, the ease was registered only under Section 498 of the Penal Code. On 9-8-1961, prosecution witnesses were examined before charge. On 11-8-1961, Mr. Thite, Pleader, who was representing the accused, intimated to the Court the intention to move for a transfer of the case to another Court and prayed for stay of the trial.2. On 3-10-1961 an application for transfer was made under Section 528, Criminal Procedure Code, to the Additional District Magistrate, Raipur, for transfer of the said criminal case from the Court of Mr. Raturi on the grounds that Mr. Raturi had kept this case on his own file when the offence was triable by a Magistrate of the second class; that Mr. Raturi did not allow the defence counsel to cross-examine the witnesses fully; and that when the prosecution witnesses were being cro...
Ganesh Balkrishna Vs. Goverdhandas and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1965MP219
ORDERP.K. Tare, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the plaintiff against the order, dated 27-4-1962, passed by Shri Devendrasingh, Additional District Judge, Alirajpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 9 of 1961 refusing to restore to file Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1961 which had been dismissed at his instance.2. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of a motor car and damages on 18-2-1955. That suit was dismissed on 9-12-1959. The trial Judge mentioned that the dismissal was under Order 17 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code.3. The petitioner on 23-12-1959 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the suit to file. The application was dismissed by the trial Court on 24-2-1960 on the assumption that the dismissal of the suit being under Order 17 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code Order 9, Rule 9, was not attracted and the remedy of the plaintiff was to file an appeal against the order dismissing t...
Chunnilal Onkarmal Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mohanlal Balkrishna Agarwal and a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1964MP126; 1963MPLJ184
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge I, Indore dismissing no suit for the refund of an advance payment made to the defendant in course of a transaction following an oral agreement to buy a quantity of stone chips for building purposes, A small quantity has been delivered and accepted, the priceof which the plaintiff had deducted from his claim, me rest of the agreed quantity was rejected by the plaintiff for reasons which the defendant considered unsatisfactory; Accordingly, the plaintiff demanded the refund, which being refused, he brought the suit, the Court found that the plaintiff was guilty of the breach; and at the same time that the amount given to the defendant was not earnest money properly so called guaranteeing performance of the contract, out only part of the price paid in advance, sun a decided that he was not entitled to a refund, and accordingly dismissed the suit.2. The questions that arose, are, ore t...
Ratanlal Son of Pannalalji Vs. Firm Mangilal Mathuralal of Indore and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP323
Tare, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the decree, dated, 15-1-1958, passed by Shri K. G. Deshmukh CivilJudge, Class I, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1952, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 651178/- as principal and Rs. 1418/4/- as interest, as also Rs. 12/6/6 as notice charges, total Rs. 7942/2/6.2. The appellant's case was that the second respondent, Tilokchand, who is the manager of the joint Hindu family firm of Mangilal Mathuralal, had cash transactions of loans with the plaintiff, which had been entered in the account books and also signed by Tilokchand from time to time. Therefore, the said amount was due on cash loans taken by the second respondent, Tilokchand in his capacity as manager of the joint family firm and therefore, not only he himself was personally liable, but also the joint family firm of 'Mangilal Mathuralal' was liable for the suit claim.3. The respondents' defence was that the transactions had not been entered into by ...
Onkarsingh Gulab Singh and ors. Vs. Meharbansingh Aharsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP176
Naik, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this reference is whether an application made by a decree-holder for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor is 'an application made in accordance with law to take a step-in-aid of execution of the decree' within the meaning of Article 182 (5) of the Limitation Act.2. The question arises under the following circumstance:The appellants (decree-holders) obtained a certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshangabad, under Section 13 of the Debt Conciliation Act. They registered it as a decree in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Sohagpur, on 29-1-1953. This decree they sought to execute against the judgment-debtor Hemabai by an application for execution filed on 17-1-1953. This application was dismissed on 26-6-1953. They again applied for execution on 5-11-1955. In this application there was a prayer that as the judgment-debtor Hemabai was dead, her legal representative be brought on r...
Dr. Rambihari Misra Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1964MP111
Krishnan, J.1. The present order shall govern the two peti-tions mentioned above and also, in so far as the validity of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act go, Misc. Petition No, 50 of 1960, in which, however, there is a separate judgment dealing with the special points raised there. In view of the frequency of such petitions it is convenient to deal in one judgment the different aspects of the problems raised in such cases with special reference to the circumstances in which certain existent rulings of this Court will apply, and those in which they may have to be distinguished.2. In all these petitions the petitioners are owners of certain lands that are being acquired for public purposes which are different in each case but about whose being public purposes there is no controversy. In all these cases one or more of the following defects are pointed out, a few more in some and a few less in others; because of them, the prayer is...
Mahendra Kumar P. Patel Vs. the State of M.P., the Sales-tax Officer M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP173
Krishnan, J.1. The petitions axe alike for the most part. The fact that one of the petitioners seems, in respect of the amount he paid as sales-tax in one of the years in question to have brought a suit against the Government, which was dismissed, does not make any material difference to our decision. Both the petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for a writ or direction to Government that it should refund to the petitioners concerned certain amounts levied during a number of years before 31st March, 1957, as sales-tax on tobacco imported by the petitioners.2. In petition No. 3 of 1961 the period is from the year ending on 31st March, 1953, to that ending on 31st March, 1957 and the amount Rs. 9140/-. In the petition No. 4 of 1961 the period concerned is the same with, however, an addition apparently by way of recovery for an earlier period made during the quarter ending on 30th June, 1957, and the amount is Rs. 8470/-. Both the petitions are based on the av...
Gyarsilal Jagannathprasad Mor Vs. Pandit Sitacharan Dubey and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP164; [1963]33CompCas667(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. This judgment will also govern, the disposal of First Appeal No. 96 of 1960.2. These are two appeals from a judgment of the Additional District Judge of Balaghat giving to the plaintiff-respondent Pandit Sita Charan Dubey a decree for Rs. 30,000/- as damages for injuries caused to him in a motor-car accident.3. The plaintiff, who on the date of the institution of the suit was about 76 years of age, has been practising as a lawyer since 1902. He became an advocate of the Nagpur High Court in 1936 and practised in that Court till 1956 until the establishment of this Court at Jabalpur. He is now an advocate of this Court and an advocate of the Supreme Court also. He was a member of the Rajya Sabha from 1952 to 1954. His case was that in March, 1956 he was required to go from Nagpur to Baihar in Balaghat district; and that when he was doing the return journey on the morning of 1st April, 1956 in a jeep car, which had been placed at his disposal by a friend of his, he was inju...
Balkishan Chaturvedi Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bhopal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963MP216
Krishnan, J.1. The petitioner who had been working as Sub-inspector of Police has come to this Court from the order ofthe Inspector General of Police dated 27-5-1958. He has alleged irregularities out of which 3 have been pressed.(i) In the circumstances to be set out presently he argues that he was really an officer under the control of the Government of the State of Rajasthan and as such could not have been dismissed by the inspector General of Police in the State of Madhya Pradesh. (ii) The inquiring officer Deputy Superintendent ot Police Afaq Hussain was prejudiced against him, being, in fact, the officer who had at the first instance asked the Circle Inspector to make a preliminary inquiry. and (iii) His prayer for personal hearing at the punishment stage was not granted. Accordingly, the petitioner has asked under Article 226, a writ or direction by this Court setting aside of the order of 'dismissal and his reinstatement in service. 2. Delay. The petitioner was dismissed on 27-...
Fazal Dad Alias Sardar Khan Fateh Ali Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1964MP272; 1965MPLJ329
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Fazaldad s/o Sardarkhan challenges the validity of the order dated 4-4-1960 passed by the State Government under Sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act No. 21 of 1946.2. The petitioner claims to have been a resident of village Fabra in District Vidisha in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the last 40 years. He owns considerable immovable property there. The petitioner alleges that he had gone to Chak. Shekhu District Gujrat (Pakistan) in July, 1948 on a temporary visit in order to participate in a marriage and to bring back his children from there. For reasons beyond his control the petitioner had to stay in Pakistan till 22-10-1953. The permit system having been introduced in October, 1948 no one from Pakistan was allowed to come back to India without a permit. The petitioner, therefore, entered India on the strength of a Pakistan passport issued by the Government of Pak...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »