Madhya Pradesh Court September 1970 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.
Smt. Gulab Devi Sohaney Vs. Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP113; 1971MPLJ184
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, filed by the claimant, is directed against an award of the Claims Tribunal. Jabalpur, dated 17th April 1968, seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount.2. The material facts, shortly stated, are as follows. The claim for compensation arose out of an accident involving the death of the claimant's son, Sureshchandra Sohaney, who was a temporary Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (Irrigation), Government of Madhya Pradesh, arising out of the use of the Government jeep --M. P. R. 7045. He was travelling in the jeep along with Shri R. J. Agrawal. Assistant Engineer. P. W. D. Seoni (N. A. W. 1) and the jeep was driven by the driver, Abdul Bashir (N. A. W. 2) They had come to Jabalpur in connection with Government work and had been to the M.P. E.B. office on 25th October. 1964, to reach one Shri Aiyangar. Superintending Engineer, P. W. D., on their way back to Seoni. While the jeep was negotiati...
Subhash Chandra Sardarmal Lalwani Vs. Radhavallabh Saligram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1970
Reported in: AIR1972MP206; 1972MPLJ65
R.J. Bhave, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff.2. A very interesting point of law is raised in this case. A house, situate at Khazanchi lane Sarafa Bazar Chowk, Bhopal, was owned by Alamdar Hussain and his family. In part of the house, Radhavallabh, the defendant No. 1, was a tenant. The whole of the house was sold in different lots to 8 persons. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 purchased in different lots the portion occupied by the defendant No. 1. Out of the portion let out to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff had purchased the portion marked as No. 8 in the plaint map and more fully described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff desired to rebuild the house which is in a dilapidated condition and hence gave a quit notice to the defendant No. 1 and filed the suit for ejectment. The defendant had also not Paid the rent from the date of the transfer till the date of the suit. Hence a decree for proportionate rent was also claimed and the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 ...
Hiralal Deepchand Oswal and ors. Vs. Babu Shiv Prasad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP59; 1970MPLJ937
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned single Judge, arising from execution proceedings. It involves the ques-tion of interpretation of Section 33 of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, (No. 1 of 1951, hereinafter called the A. O. P. R. Act). A Division Bench had heard this appeal and referred the case to a Full Bench. This matter was then heard by us.2. A mortgage decree was passed on September 16, 1938, in favour of the respondents (hereinafter called the decree-holders) against the appellants in civil suit No. 10-A of 1934 in the Court of the Additional District Judge. Sagar. The decree was for the recovery of Rs. 11984/-. The mortgaged property consisted of the entire 16 annas share in village Meerkhedi and 9 annas share in village Barkheda. Earlier on April 20, 1934, the respondents had also obtained a money decree for Rs. 3793/- in Civil Suit No. 16-B of 1934.3. The appellants (hereinafter called the judgment-debtors) appl...
Ali Ahmad and Sons Vs. Brij Kishore Pateria and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP71; 1970MPLJ952
Bhargava J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the two orders made by the first respondent Shri Brij Kishore Pateria, Minister of State (Home), Madhya Pradesh, on 20-3-1970 and 11-5-1970, staying the operation of a permit on an inter State route Jashpur-Ranchi via Gumla, which was granted by the State Transport Authority on 7-2-1970, pending consideration of the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 Ganesh Prasad Gupta against the grant of the said permit. The petitioner also seeks a direction restraining the first respondent by a writ of Prohibition or Mandamus from dealing with the appeal preferred by respondent No. 5 against the Order of the State Transport Authority (respondent No. 4) dated 7-2-1970 to the aforesaid effect. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The petitioner and some other bus-operators, including respondent No. 5 Ganesh Prasad Gupta, had made applications for the grant of two single trip permits, i. e., one return tri...
Nagar Palika Officer, Bhander Vs. Rajendra Singh Senger
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP57; 1971CriLJ381; 1970MPLJ887
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from an order of acquittal.2. Rajendra Singh (respondent) was prosecuted for an offence under Section 187 (8) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. The case against him was that he constructed a double storeyed building without obtaining sanction from the Municipality as required by the law and this constituted an offence.3. A complaint was filed by the Administrator of the Municipal Committee, Bhander, before the Magistrate First Class, Datia-Bhander. The learned Magistrate ordered discharge of the accused who had been summoned on the said complaint. He says :--'Nowhere a Magistrate is empowered to impose fine for construction done by accused without permission of the Municipality under Section 187 of the Act. The municipality can impose the requisite fine and can recover the amount of fine so imposed on an application made to theMagistrate. But the Magistrate himself cannot im...
Ram Ratan Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP69; 1970MPLJ963
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the Commissioner, Bhopal dated April 1, 1968, and of the Board of Revenue dated April 11, 1969.2. The petitioner was dispossessed in compliance with an order of the Commissioner dated January 15, 1966 which order was eventually set aside by the Board of Revenue by order dated August 31, 1966. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to restitution without an enquiry into his objection that the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have given possession to a stranger, namely, one Balabai.3. This case has had a chequered history and is an example of laws delays. The facts will have to be stated in four parts.PART IOn 22-2-1952, Ramratan petitioner Instituted proceedings under Section 91 of the M. B. Tenancy Act, 1951, against Mathura Prasad and Ramnarayan, complaining that the latter threatened encroachment so that they be restrained from interfering with his possession.On 27-2-...
Johrilal and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP116; 1971CriLJ814; 1971MPLJ64
Shiv Dayal, J.1. The appellants have been convicted for two offences under Section 302, read with Section 34, of the Penal Code, and each has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for each of the two murders. The sentences have been ordered to run consecutively in case of each of the appellants.2. The accused and the deceased were related thus:-- _____________________________________________________ | | | |Babulal Gangaprasad Shambhudayal Nokhelal (killed) (accused) | | Johrilal Gendlal (accused) (killed)There was some dispute regarding land between Gangaprasad and Babulal. Gangaprasad had filed a suit against Babulal for possession. In that suit, Shambhudayal and Johrilal were also joined as defendants. A decree for possession was passed in favour of Gangaprasad. They are residents of village Gowari. On May 10, 1967, the marriage of one Khushaliram's daughter was to be celebrated at village Kudodobri. Gangaprasad and Gendlal went there to attend the marriage. At abou...
Gulabchand Kapurchand JaIn and ors. Vs. Rukmanidevi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP40; 1970MPLJ794
Pandey, J.1. This case comes before us on account of somewhat divergent views expressed by S. B. Sen, J. and Oza J. about the competence of the President to issue under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 any notification in so far as it may be regarded as (i) taking away the power of the Judges, sitting for the time being at the seat of one of the permanent Benches, to hear a case arising in a Revenue District, the jurisdiction and power in regard to which are not given by the notification to that permanent Bench or (ii) as restrictively limiting the jurisdiction of a permanent Bench to cases mentioned in the notification relating to its constitution.2. In the course of his order Sen J. stated:'From what we have stated earlier, It is clear that the notification of the President, so far as it relates to the restriction of the High Court Judges to hear cases from areas other than those mentioned in the notification is beyond the scope of Section 51(2) of the States Reor...
Kulsekarapatnam Hand Match Workers' Co-operative Cottage Industrial So ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP191; 1971MPLJ552
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This appeal filed by the seller arises out of a suit by the buyer for the refund of the price in a case of breach of contract on the part of the seller. 2. The facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated. The seller, who is the appellant, is a manufacturer of matches. He entered into a contract dated 9th June 1963, through his selling agent, to sell 600 bundles of 'Jyoti' brand matches. In breach of that contract, the seller despatched by rail 301 bundles of 'Jyoti' brand matches and included 299 bundles of 'Light House' brand matches to make up the consignment of 600 bundles. As this was a contract for sale of goods by description, there was an implied condition that the goods must correspond with the description. The buyer accordingly exercised his option under Section 37(3) of the Sale of Goods Act and refused to take delivery. He was, however, prevailed upon by the agent to retire the Hundi for Rs. 18695.30 and take delivery of the goods, on the promise t...
Pratapsingh and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ172; 1970MPLJ978
S.M.N. Raina, J.1. Appellants Pratapsicgh and Janved have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. They have, therefore preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentences.2. Appellant Pratapsingh is the husband of Mst, Mahadevi (P.W. 10.) Appellant Janved is her brother. Pratapsing was residing in Kaharan-ka-Mohalla at Bhind while Janved is a resident of village Kaharanka pura about 6 to 7 miles from Bhind, Deceased Ramcbaran sweeper was also a resident of Bhind.3. The case of the prosecution is that on account of liason between Mst. Mahadevi (P, W. 10) wife of appellant Pratapsingh and the deceased Bamoharan both the appellants committed the murder of Ramcharan in the house of Pratap on the 11th April 1967 at about 10 P. M. and thereafter ran away leaving the dead body in the house. Head-Constable Barfraj Beg (P.W. 1) who happend to pass by the house soon after this...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›