Madhya Pradesh Court October 1966 Judgments
Princess Ushadevi Malhotra and ors. Vs. Bhagwandas Tiwari and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP250
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge. Indore. dismissing their suit as against the surety defendant No. 2 and decreeing it only against the principal debtor defendant No. 1. The questions for decision are whether in the special circumstances fee dealings between the principal debtor and the plaintiffs between February and July, 1955, can be described as the grant of time or composition coming under Section 135 or the acceptance of additional security which by implication discharging the original surety, or amount to acts calculated to prejudice the interests of the surety in the manner set out in Section 139 of the Contract Act.2. The following facts of the case are practically common ground and though there are one or two obscurities in matters of detail they have not been raised in the pleadings of either party as justifying its respective case.3. The plaintiffs are the trustees in charge of certain propertie...
Tag this Judgment!Balram Chunnilal and ors. Vs. Durgalal Shivnarain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP81
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff suing on the authority the panchas of the Hariyana Gaud Brahmin community of Indore from the judgment of dismissal delivered by the Civil Judge in a suit for the removal of the defendant, a pujari or shebait, and the framing of scheme, filed with the sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92 C. P. C. The suit was also framed on the alternative--the necessity of which will presently appear--that in the event of the defendant being found to be not a trustee or shebait but just an appointed pujari-servant for his removal on account of improper conduct and the claiming of the temple as his own property. It was dismissed on different grounds, primarily on that the particulars of the foundation of the temple were not clearly ascertainable, and further the defendant's father and brother having openly claimed to be the full owners and not the pujaris as long ago as in 1933, they had prescribed title to themselves and accordingly the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan Transport Services (Private) Ltd. Vs. State Transport Appell ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP162
Bhave, J.1. The Regional Transport Authority. Bilaspur, by an order, dated 4-1-1964, granted a contract carriage permit to the respondent No. 3. Under this permit the respondent No. 3 is entitled to ply his tempo (a six-seater motor vehicle) within a radius of 10 miles from Bilaspur centre. The petitioner was an objector. The petitioner holds a number of permits on Bilaspur-Chakrabhata route--a distance of less than 10 miles. The contention of the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority was that the contract carriage permit-holders use their vehicles as stage carriages and instead of carrying passengers from one point to another on the route under a single contract, they pick up passengers and set them down just like stage carriages. The petitioner was affected by this activity, as no time is fixed for them and they pick up the Bilaspur-Chakrabhata passengers before the carriages of the petitioner reach the place The petitioner, therefore, requested the Regional Transport Au...
Tag this Judgment!Burhar and Amlai Collierles (Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.) Vs. Central In ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ528MP
R.J. Bhave, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order, dated 6 May 1965, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Bonus Appeal No. 10 of 1964, The petition has been filed by the manage ment of Burhar and Amlai Collieries (Shaw Wallace & Co., Ltd.), Rewa Coalfields, Ltd., Dhanpuri, Shahdol. It is alleged that C.R.O. miner-loaders, working at the Amlai Colliery. Burhar No. 1 and Burhar No. 3 mines, struck work In the third shift on 8 May 1964 and all the three shifts on 9 May 1964. The management treated the strike as illegal, as It was resorted to without giving any notice. It was also alleged that the strike was resorted to when the All India Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes) award was In operation. The management, therefore, applied under Para. 8 (1) of the Goal-mines Bonus Scheme, 1948, framed under the Coal-mines Provident Pond and Bonus Schemes Ordinance, 1948 (7 of 1948...
Tag this Judgment!Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Mun ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP169
Dixit, C.J.1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., challenges the validity of the bye-laws of the Bhopal Municipal Council issued in the Gazette dated 6th November 1964 prohibiting all persons in charge of motor buses plying for hire from taking up or setting down passengers, or parking, or stopping their buses anywhere within the limits of the Bhopal Municipality except at a Bus Stand situated on Hamidia Road. Bhopal, and prescribing fees for the use of the Bus Stand. The petitioner prays that the aforesaid bye-laws be declared invalid and the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the bye-laws in any manner.2. The impugned bye-laws were published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 6th November 1964. The preamble to the bye-laws recites that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 357(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Minor Through Kashi Ram and anr. Vs. Smt. Ramo Bai Minor Thr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP220; 1968MPLJ19
P.K. Tare, J. 1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants against the decree, dated 3-12-1958, as amended by the order, dated 24-1-1961, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in civil appeal No. 239 of 1958, partly modifying the decree, dated 1-7-1957, passed by the Munsif, Udaipura, in civil suit No. 37 of 1956, dated 1-1-1957.2. The genealogy of the first respondent's family is as under: Darmalsingh (d. 36 years before) | ______________________|______________________ | | Ayodhya- Hargovind Brijmohan Raghuraj- prasad singh (Respondent 2) (d. 15 years before). Smt. Ramobai (Respondent 1).Hargovind and Brijmohan died long back. The first respondent filed the present suit against the alienees Bhaosingh, Kashirarn and Ramsingh alleging that there was already a partition between her uncle Ayodhya Prasad and her father Raghuraj Singh about one year prior to the death of Raghuraj Singh. Therefore she claimed to be the heir of her father and, as such, alleged that the sal...
Tag this Judgment!Devkumarsinghji Kasturchandji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP268
Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 73 and from 90 to 99. all of 1965. and Nos. 7 to 9. all of 1966.2. The petitioners in these fifteen applications under Article 226 of the Constitution are owners of buildings and lands situated within the limits of the Indore Municipal Corporation. They challenge the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Slhawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam. 1964. (No. 14 of 1964; hereinafter referred to us as the Act), and pray that the said Act be declared to be ultra vires the power of the State Legislature and be struck down as unconstitutional. They also pray that the State of Madhva Pradesh be restrained from enforcing any of the provisions of the Act and from recovering any amount of property-tax from the petitioners under the Act, and further that the demand notices issued to the petitioners for the payment of property-tax be quashed and any amount recovered from them as property-tax be refunded to them.3. Befor...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Gangaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP188; 1968CriLJ1178; 1968MPLJ261
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Shri Raina, Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted of the offence under Section 376, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge has directed that instead of undergoing his sentence he would be sent to a Reformatory School under the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897, and shall be detained there for a period of two years.2. The accused is about 15 years of age. His mother died some years ago. He lives with his father. In the neighbourhood resides Kumari Budhia, a girl of about 8 or 9 years, with her parents. She often used to go to his house for playing. On 13th January 1965, at about 5 p.m., she went to his house to play with him (vide her cross-examination). At that, time there was no one in his house. He took her in a room, lay her down and committed sexual intercourse. On medical examination, the following injuries were found on her person:'(1) A superficial a...
Tag this Judgment!Bisnath Vs. Bastimal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP208; 1968MPLJ122
Tare, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendant against the order, dated 20-11-19R5, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in civil appeal No 12-A of 1965. reversing the order, dated 29-4-1965, passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Khairagarh in civil suit No. 40-A of 1964, passing a decree in terms of an award as a compromise under Order 23. Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The respondent filed a suit for possession of certain agricultural lands. Duringthe pendency of the suit, the parties, without reference to the Court, agreed to refer their dispute to the arbitration of certain Panchas who delivered an award on 23-10-1964. The award was signed by the respondent with an endorsement that he was accepting the same. The petitioner merely put his signature without any endorsement of acceptance or refusal. Subsequently the petitioner filed his written statement in Court on merits and thereafter prayed that the award, which had been consented to by the parties, should be m...
Tag this Judgment!Moolchand Hansraj Vs. K.K.R. Naidu and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP253; 1968MPLJ354
Dixit, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, for committing the respondents for contempt of Court The first respondent is the Sub-Divisional Officer, Waraseoni, District Balaghat: the second respondent is the Circle Inspector of Police. Waraseoni; and the third respondent is the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat.2. The petitioner says that he hold a mining lease in respect of certair lands situated in village Koilari of Waraseoni Tehsil; that the lease was granted to him on 20th October 1956 and is for a period of 20 years; that on a report being made by some interested person that the petitioner has without any lawful authority extracted and removed minerals, the Sub-Divisional Officer started an enquiry under Section 247 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959; that during the pendency of proceedings under Section 247 of the Code, the Sub-divisional Officer made a report to the police asking the police authorities to register a case of theft aga...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›