Madhya Pradesh Court November 1975 Judgments
Bhupendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Y.S. Dharmadhikari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP110
Raina, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is an Advocate practising in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and is as such a voter having a right to vote at the elections of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council'), The elections of the members of the Council were held on 4-5-1974 and the result was published by the Secretary of the Council (respondent No. 2) on 4th June, 1974 vide Annexure A. Respondents 3 to 22 were declared duly elected and their names were published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, dated 21st June, 1974.3. The petitioner has challenged the election of respondents Nos. 3 to 22 as contrary to law on the following, among other grounds :(1) The term of office of the members of the previous Council expired on 19-10-1973 and, therefore, there was no validly constituted Council thereafter competent to hold the elections of the present Council under the Bar Council of Madhya ...
Tag this Judgment!Partap and anr. Vs. Smt. Puniya Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1977MP108
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J. 1. This is a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Non-applicant No. 1 filed a suit for declaration of her title over the land in suit and for confirmation of possession thereof. She paid court-fees of Rs. 30/-on the relief of declaration and of Rs. 55/-on the relief of confirmation of possession on the basis of half of 20 times of the land revenue of the land as she claimed only half share therein. The defendant-applicant raised an objection that the suit was not properly valued for court-fees. This objection was disallowed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved thereby the applicant has filed this revision petition.3. The case of the plaintiff as laid in the plaint is as follows. She is an old illiterate village woman residing in the interior of Chhindwara district having no knowledge or experience of the working of Courts and offices. She owns half share in the land in suit. The other half is held by her sisters-in-law. Defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Panne Khushali and anr. Vs. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP148
Bhachawat, J.1. The plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 filed suit (No. 56-A/ 69) in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior for the specific performance of a contract, contending that the non-applicant No. 2 had entered into an agreement with him for the sale of the contracted! house to turn, but has failed to complete the sale and prayed for a decree directing the non-applicant No. 2 to complete the sale by executing and setting registered a sale-deed in his favour. The intervener applicants made an application for being joined as a party to the suit contending that the suit property is a coparcenery property and they as coparceners are the co-owners of it; the non-applicant No. 2 had neither a right to enter into an agreement for sale, nor has a right to sell it, nor any such act of his can bind their shares in it.2. The trial Court rejected the application, holding that the applicants cannot be added as parties to the suit against which the present revision was filed in th...
Tag this Judgment!Shersingh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP86
Oza, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction in the nature of habeas corpus challenging his detention by the respondents under the provisions contained in the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.2. According to the petitioner, he was detained by orders of the District Magistrate, Indore, on 2-7-1975 and a declaration as contemplated under the amended Act was issued on 2-7-1975.3. The respondents in their reply have raised certain preliminary objections, At the hearing learned Deputy Government Advocate only argued about the preliminary objections. The main objections raised by the respondents at the time of hearing are :(1) That in view of the proclamation of emergency by the President on 25th June, 1975 and in view of the subsequent order of the President under Article 359 of the Constitution dated 27th June, 1975, the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 21, 22 and 19 of the Constitution are su...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Prasad Vs. Mst. Rajkunwar Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP214
ORDERU.N. Bhachawat, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendant applicant directed against the order dated 22-7-1975 in Civil Suit No. 86-A/68 by the Fourth Civil Jugde, Class II, Gwalior. 2. The undisputed facts leading to the present revision are these: The applicant paid the process fee for summoning his witnesses for 22-7-1975. The summons of all the witnesses except those of Babulal and Peerchand were returned unserved. Witnesses Babulal and Peerchand did not appear on the date despite service. The trial court vide the impugned order, ordered for issuing bailable warrant of Rs. 500 each against all the witnesses including those whose summons had returned unserved. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the court has no jurisdiction to issue a coercive process against witnesses except under the conditions mentioned in Order 16, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). In the insta...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Vs. Smt. Rajrani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1977MP98
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This appeal, filed by the plaintiff, is directed against a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jabalpur Camp Katni dated 15th October, 1973, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the proper management of a private trust.The suit out of which this appeal arises, was brought by the appellant Gajadhar, as plaintiff, against the respondent-defendants No. 1, Mst Rajrani widow of Bhaironprasad. founder of the trust and No 2, Arjunsingh, one of the two trustees appointed by him, seeking the following among other reliefs-- (i) for the appointment of new trustees and for delivery of possession of trust property to them, on removal of the defendant No. 2 Arjunsingh, as a trustee, and (ii) for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent-defendants to restore back the deities Sri Radhakishan and Sri Laxminarayan from village Khera to village Badhaiya-Khera, i. e. the place of their original abode.2. The plaintiff's suit was brought on the allegation that his brother Bhairo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›