Madhya Pradesh Court March 1969 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.
Hayatkhan and ors. Vs. Mangilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1971MP140; 1970MPLJ671
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Indore, dismissing the appellant's application for compensation on a preliminary ground.2. The alleged accident took place on 29th September 1964 and the application for claim was filed on 2nd September 1965. The applicant-appellants contended that at the time of the accident they were minors and that the appellant No. 1 attained majority on 21st July 1965 and, therefore, he filed the claim petition within two months of the date of attainment of majority. On these grounds, the appellants prayed for condonation of delay.3. The learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal framed two preliminary issues, namely:--'1. Whether the applicant No. 1 attained the age of majority on 21-7-1965?2. If so, whether the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time?' In regard to the first issue, the learned Judge found in favour of the appellants. Regarding the other issue he cam...
Nathusingh Vs. Sukhram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970MP283
Krishnan, J.1. In this reference the question to be answered by us is this: Whether in the event of the owner of a bhumiswami agricultural holding claiming a right of easement on a contiguous holding which is also held in bhumiswami rights, the easement materializes on peaceful, uniterrupted and continuous usage for 20 years as provided in the main body of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, or whether on the ground that the land 'belongs' to government, it should be for a period of 60 years under the old Limitation Act and 30 years under the present one, as provided in the last clause of the same section?2. There are two other questions which arise in the same second appeal; first, one of fact, whether actually the claimant to the easement has proved such usage for a period of over 30 years; the second, one of law, whether, in view of the amendment of the Indian Limitation Act, even on the theory that this land 'belongs' to the government, the period would be only 30 and not 60 ye...
Phoolchand Narendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970MP70; 1969MPLJ5
A.P. Sen, J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari for quashing an order dated 13th December 1968 passed by the Collector of Jabalpur under Clause 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order'), refusing to renew their Foodgrains Dealer's Licence No. 30/ 65 for the year 1969 and also for a consequential writ of Mandamus for directing its renewal. 2. The facts leading to this petition, shortly stated, are these. The petitioners are a partnership firm trading in food-grains under the name and style 'Phoolchand Narendrakumar' in the city of Jabalpur, under Foodgrains Dealer's Licence No. 30/65 issued by the Collector of Jabalpur under Clause 3 of the Order. The firm is constituted of 3 partners, namely, Narendra Kumar, Devendra Kumar and Nirmal Kumar (Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein), with the minor Lalchand (Petitioner No. 4) admitted to its benefits, an...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›