Madhya Pradesh Court January 1973 Judgments
Moolchand and anr. Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP245; 1973MPLJ596
Oza, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the State Government under Section 421 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act) setting aside the order passed by the appeal committee of the Indore Municipal Corporation granting permission for Construction of a overhanging balcony which initially was refused by the Commissioner of the Corporation.2. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of House No. 3 on Street No. 2, in Murai Mohalla, Sanyogitaganj, Indore within the limits of the Indore Municipal Corporation. The petitioner decided to reconstruct the house, and consequently on 30th June, 1967, they submitted an application for permission to build in accordance with the plan submitted along with that application. They also submitted along with this application what was required under Section 294 of the Act. In the proposed plan, the petitioners had shown galleries projecting to the extent of 3 feet ...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Krishna Vs. Anoop Chand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP248; 1973MPLJ103
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This appeal arises from a suit for sale of mortgaged property consisting of a two-storeyed building situate at Shivpuri.2. On August 11, 1943, a mortgage deed (Ex. P-2) for Rs. 8,500/- was executed by Anoopchand (defendant No. 1), Mehar-chand (defendant No. 2) and Santokchand, father of Vijaychand (defendant No. 3). This was a registered mortgage deed in which it was covenanted that the mortgage property could be redeemed on the expiry of five years.3. Again, on August 14, 1943, a second mortgage deed (Ex. P-3) was executed by the three mortgagors, (sons of Sobha-chand) for Rs. 2,500/-. The new mortgage debt was repayable along with, the earlier one.4. These mortgage deeds were executed in favour of Pyarelal and Amarlal (defendant No. 4), Pyarelal is dead. Jagdish Prasad (defendant No. 5) and Kishanlal (defendant No. 6) are sons of Amarlal.5. On August 11, 1960, Amarlal, Jagdish Prasad and Kishanlal transferred to Radhakrishna (plaintiff) their mortgagee rights under ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotelal Keshoram, Partnership Firm Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP146; 1973MPLJ404
Tare, C.J.1. In second appeal No. 433 of 1961 (Chhote Lal Keshoram v. Union of India) the learned Single Judge referred the following question for the opinion of a larger Bench and the then Chief Justice was pleased to constitute a Full Bench for considering the same:'Whether, when an application for certified copies of a judgment and a decree is made after the signing of the judgment but before the decree is prepared and signed, the whale of the time taken by the Court in preparing the decree, i.e., the time between the signing of the judgment and the signing of the decree is time requisite for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and the decree within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act (Indian Limitation Act, 1908), in cases where the delay in the preparation of the decree was for no fault of the applicant?'2. This reference arose on the following facts. The appellant-firm sued the respondent for damage to a consignment and a decree for Rs. 8...
Tag this Judgment!Girja Shankar Shukla Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Harda and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP104; 1973MPLJ411
Verma, J.1. This whole case has been referred to this Full Bench for decision in view of the fact that on the main question for decision heroin, there appears to be a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court. The correctness of the construction made of the expression 'current charge of the duties of a post' by a Division Bench of this Court in Rampratap v. State of M. P., 1964 MPLJ 86 = (AIR 1964 Madh Pra 114) was doubled by another Division Bench in State of M. P. v. Gokul Prasad, 1971 MPLJ 609 = (1971 Lab IC 896). Hence this reference.2. The petitioner, as a voter, has challenged the election of respondent No. 2 as President and of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as Vice-Presidents of the Municipal Council, Itarsi, at a meeting held for the purpose on 10-7-1971. This council was constituted after the general elections in April 1969 and the impugned elections were for these offices after expiry of the terms of their first incumbents. The notice (Annexure 'G') convening the...
Tag this Judgment!Kishun Bodu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ953; 1974MPLJ392
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439. read with Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. The petitioners and 15 others-were prosecuted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Sections 120B' 148 of the Indian Penal Code. After holding an enquiry into the matter, the Magistrate committed the petitioners to the Court of Session for trial alone with two-others namely. Dayaram and Bodhan on charges under Sections 302, 148 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions against the order of commitment; but it was dismissed. They have therefore, filed this petition.3. At the hearing of this petition learned Counsel for the petitioners pressed the case of only three petitioners namely. Itwari. Kanhaiya and Bhawar Singh. on the ground that their commitment on the aforesaid charges was illegal as they were not founded on any evidence against them.4. There can be ...
Tag this Judgment!Badrilal Jagannath Vs. Digambar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973MP272; 1973MPLJ690
H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal by the tenant-defendant in an ejectment suit which has been decreed by the concurrent judgments of the lower Courts. Besides repeating some of the arguments taken in defence in the lower Courts, the appellant has also raised two additional points which would be set out and examined presently. 2. In the town of Sonkatch, there is a society called Digambar Jain Panchayat which controls and manages two Jain temples with nine houses attached to the temples for their maintenance. In fact, the society is competent to manage the temples and properties generally for the benefit of the Digambar Jain community at that place. Most of the houses are on rent and the income is applied for the maintenance of the temples and some attached Dharmashalas and schools. One of the houses had been rented to the joint family of which the defendant-appellant is the 'Karta'. The plaintiff-panchayat found that the accommodation for school was insufficient and they were in n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›