Madhya Pradesh Court April 1976 Judgments
Virendrasingh Bhandari and ors. Vs. Nandlal Bhandari and Sons P. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas532(MP)
J.S. Verma, J.1. This petition under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ') is primarily for a direction to wind up the company--' M/s. Nandlal Bhandari and Sons (Private) Ltd. ' Indore, or in the alternative to make certain directions under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act to grant the other reliefs specified in the petition. The petition came up for admission before Oza J. and was admitted by him on September 22, 1972, while deferring the question of advertisement to a later date. Notice was issued to the company which has opposed advertisement of the petition and filed I. A. No. 2049 of 1975 on August 20, 1975, for not advertising the petition, revoking the order of admission and dismissing the petition for winding up. This order shall govern the disposal of this application and decide the question regarding advertisement of the petition.2. The company--' M/s. Nandlal Bhandari and Sons (Private) Ltd. ' (hereinafter referred to as ' the company...
Tag this Judgment!Nagjiram Vs. Mangilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP8
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. A Division Bench has referred this case to us to 'resolve the controversy' between Paitram v. Board of Revenue (1968 Jab LJ 304) and Gangaram v. Kanhaiyalal (1971 Jab LJ 819). Those cases were decided by two different Division Benches. In both of them the question was what the Tahsildar can do and how he should proceed with an application for partition made before it under Section 178 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Lend Revenue Code. 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) when any question of title is raised. Section 178 of the Code reads as follows:--'Section 178 Partition of holding:-- (1) if in any holding which has been assessed for the purpose of agriculture under Section 59, there are more than one Bhumiswami, any such Bhumiswami mayapply to a Tahsildar for a partition of his share in the holding : Provided that no such partition shall be made, if any question of title is raised, until such question has been decided by a civil suit. (2) The Tahsildar may, after...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Narayan Vs. Baburam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977MP191; 1977MPLJ67
ORDERU.N. Bhachawat, J. 1. This is defendant's revision directed against the order of the Civil Judge Class II in Civil Original Suit No. 104A/73 dated 12-2-1974. 2. Succinctly put the facts essential for the decision of this revision are these : The plain-tiff-non-applicant has filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the applicant wherein various issues have been framed, the burden of proving some of which is on the plaintiff and of some on the defendant. The plaintiff began his evidence and on 12-2-1974 when he closed his evidence, he stated that he was reserving his right to produce evidence in rebuttal on issue Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 4(b) and 5, the onus of proof of which is on the defendant. The trial Court vide the impugned order while reserving plaintiff's right of leading evi-dcPce in rebuttal fixed the case for defendant's evidence. 3. The defendant after closure of his evidence on 5-3-1974 made an application on 23-3-1974 before the Trial Court for reviewing its imp...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyamdas Applicant Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1373
ORDERC.P. Sen, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge for quashing the charge Under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the non-applicant.2. The non-applicant is a Vaidyaraj holding a degree of A.V.M.S. from the Board of Indian Medicines, Madhya Pradesh. He is privately practising in medicines at Rehli. On 28-8-1971 deceased Babulal Yadav came to his dispensary. After examining the deceased, the non-applicant gave one coramine injection as there was heavy coughing and there was difficulty in breathing. Thereafter the deceased collapsed. The body was sent for post-mortem examination and according to the Doctor the cause of death was due to obstruction of bronchia in both lungs by tenacious sputum which led to suffocation and respiratory failure. It was also noted that the deceased was a patient of bronchial asthma for the last 25 years. It was not mentioned in the report that coramine injection had the effect of accelerating the death. However, the police re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›