Madhya Pradesh Court January 1974 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.
Bansilal Bansidhar Vs. Nandlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1974
Reported in: AIR1975MP25; 1974MPLJ552
J.S. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against a decision of Krishnan J. in Misc. Appeal No. 111 of 1971. 2. The appellant is a judgment-debtor in a decree passed on an award. The award was made on 27-3-1965 and was filed iu the Court on 2-4-1965 for being made a rule of the Court. On 7-5-1965 the parties to the award including the present appellant appeared in the Court and filed their written consent to the award expressly stating that they had no objection to the award being made a rule of the Court, and it was prayed that an order be made accordingly. Acting on the consent of the parties and rinding no cause to either remit or set aside the award, the Court passed a judgment and decree according to that award. Admittedly, the limitation pi ascribed for filing objections to the award had not expired on 7-5-1965 but no objections were filed by the appellant or any one else to the award till the expiry of that period. Apart from this, no appeal or re...
Ardeshar Irani Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP199; 1974MPLJ514
J.S. Verma, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. (First Appeal No. 117 of 1970 A. Krishnamurthy v. The State) Both these appeals are filed under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against judgment of the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur setting aside the award.2. The plaintiff-appellant in each case filed the suit for recovery of the amount claimed as due from the State Government on the basis of a building contract. On the suit being filed, the defendant State of Madhya Pradesh applied for staying the suit on the ground that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, according to which, the dispute was to be decided by arbitration. Ultimately such an objection by the defendant was sustained and the dispute was referred for adjudication by the Arbitrator. Shri B. V. Subbarao, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department of the State Government. There was no agreement made between the parties with regard to the remuneration to be paid to...
Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Mahagarh and ors. Vs. Ramchandra Narayan Kokil a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP164; 1974MPLJ447
J.S. Verma, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to the affairs of Sewa Sahakari Sanstha, Mahagarh, a primary credit society duly registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners seek to have the order, dated, 22-6-1972 (Annexure X to the petition) issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Mandsaur quashed hereby. By this order purporting to be made under Section 57(a) of the Act, the Assistant Registrar has directed the Co-operative Extension Officer, District Mandsaur (respondent No. 2) to seize the entire record of the Society from the petitioners and to hand over the same thereafter to Bhawani Shankar (respondent No. 3) who has been described as the President of the Society. 2. At the very outset, we are constrained to observe that the undisputed facts placed before us do disclose a shocking state of affairs in respect of the management of the Society and i...
Balwant Singh Gandhi and anr. Vs. Ravishankar University, Raipur and a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP169
Tankha, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and pray for quashing the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor (Kulapati) of Ravishankar University, Rajpur (respondent No. 2) conveyed to them by the Registrar of the said University vide his letter dated 1-8-1973 (Annexure I) disqualifying them from appearing at the Final M.B.B.S. Practical Examination July, 1973. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioners are the students of Final M.B.B.S. class in the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Rajpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'). The College is affiliated to Ravishanker University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). The petitioners were admitted to the Final M.B. B.S. conducted by the University in the year 1973. The petitioners had appeared in their theory papers in all the concerned subjects of the examination, but before they could appear in Practical examination, a show cau...
Sitaram and ors. Vs. Maharaja Govindsinghjoo Deo and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP173; 1974MPLJ368
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. The Taxing Officer (Registrar, High Court) has referredfor decision the question whether the court-fee paid on this appeal is proper. 2. The appellants (plaintiffs) are sons of Baldeo Prasad Tiwari (defendant No. 2). A money decree was passed in favour of Maharaja Govind Singh (defendant No. 1) against the said Baldeo Prasad. Certain properties were attached in execution of the decree. The plaintiffs herein preferred objection under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was dismissed by the executing Court. The plaintiffs then brought the suit under Order 21, Rule 63, from which this appeal arises. 3. The suit was initially for declaration of title simpliciter. The plaintiffs amended their plaint in the trial Court and added a relief that the decree was ineffective to the extent of the plaintiffs' share in the suit property and that the suit property be released from attachment. 4. Initially the plaintiffs had paid court-fee of Sections 30 for the ...
Ramesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the Jiwaji University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP190; 1974MPLJ559
Oza, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that in the year' 1968-69 he joined first year LL.B. course in the M. L. B. College and appeared at the first year examination conducted to the non-petitioner University in month of April-May, 1969. That in the year 1969-70 a system of examination was introduced in the law course and according to this system, the entire course of each year divided into two semesters-- first from the commencement of the academic session till December and the second after the reopening of the college after the winter vacations till the end of the academic session. According to this system, it was provided that the two semesters will have separate examinations-- for first semester in November/December and for second semester in April/May, followed by a supplementary examination in July/August2. According to the petitioner, he took admission in LL.B. second year in academic session 1969-70 in M. L- B. College and appeared at the first semes...
Ramdas Sujan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP176; 1974MPLJ300
Dwivedi, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of certiorari that the 'no-confidence' motion, passed on 25-10-71 against the petitioner Ramdas be quashed. 2. The petitioner's case is this. The Gram Panchayat, Thanra in Block Khaniadhana, District Shivpuri, consisted of 15 members. The petitioner was elected as 'Up-Sarpanch'. On 5-10-71, a notice (Annexure 1) was issued to the Panchas convening a meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 25-10-71 for consideration of the 'no-confidence' motion against the petitioner. On 25-10-71 the meeting was called and commenced at 11 A.M., but actually it started at 12-30 P.M. The motion of 'no-confidence' was passed against the petitioner vide Annexure 2, who challenged its validity on the grounds, (i) that the meeting though scheduled to begin at 11 A.M. actually started at 12-30 P.M.; (ii) the voting by the Ranchas was not by show of hands and thus there was no voting as contemplated by Section 24 o...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chainkaran
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1110; 1974MPLJ336
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal.2. The respondent was tried for contravention of the M. P. Commodities Price Display Order, 1971, issued under Rule 114 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.3. The prosecution case against the accused was that on December 13, 1971, he had for sale in his shop baby food, milk powder, Amul Spray, Parag, Lactodex, etc., but he had not displayed the price list.4. The accused accepted that he had not displayed the price list and pleaded guilty.5. The learned trial Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused on the ground that the said Order had not received prior concurrence of the Central Government as required under Rule 114 (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. The material portion of Rule 114 may be reproduced here:General control of industry, etc., (1) xx xx xx(2) If the Central Government or the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the Defence of India and Civil Defe...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abdul Khalil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1113; 1974MPLJ312
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This appeal is from an order of acquittal.2. The respondent was tried for contravention of the M. P. Commodities Price Display Order, 1971 issued under Rule 114 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 for having not displayed the price-list and stock of soap which he was selling, punishable under Rule 114 (ii) of the Rules. He was further tried for the same act being in contravention of the M. P. Essential Articles (Exhibition of Price and Distribution) Order, 1966 issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, punishable under Section 7 of that Act.3. The case for the prosecution was that on December 14, 1971, during the course of checking it was found that the accused had not displayed price-list as was required under the said Orders. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses found the facts as alleged by the prosecution proved and convicted the accused under Rule 114 (2) of the Defence of India ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. Babulal Pathak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1974
Reported in: AIR1974MP179; 1974MPLJ191
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act from the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Betul, setting aside an award on the ground that it was made after 'the prescribed time. The objection that the award was made beyond the time prescribed by law was not raised by any party. After disposing of theobjections, which were raised before him under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, he raised the question of time limit suo motu.2. The facts as stated by the arbitrator in his award are that on January 12, 1960, Babula' Pathak had purchased coupe No. 1, Bha;nsaghat, in public auction for Rs. 20.000, the contract period being upto March 31, 1961. The forest staff detected some illicit felling in the coupe and the Divisional Forest Officer, South Betul Division, Betul, imposed penalty, on the contractor. The contractor denied the allegations made against him. Thus a dispute arose. In his award, the arbitrator held that, Babulal Pathak was guilt...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »