Madhya Pradesh Court May 1977 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.
Firm Ladhuram Rameshwardayal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shivpuri an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP10; 1977MPLJ641
Shiv Dayal, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred to us by a Division Bench. It will be useful to state the circumstances leading to this reference:--(i) Firm Ladhuram Rameshwardayal, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari, inter alia, to quash the electoral roll and also to quash the election programme in connection with an election to the Agriculture Market Committee of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shivpuri.(ii) The petition was heard by a Division Bench of Raina, J. and Bhacha-wat, J. They differed. In the opinion of Raina, J. the petition was to be dismissed. In the opinion of Bhachawat, J. the petition was to be allowed inasmuch as the voters list and the whole programme of the election were invalid and consequently the election which had taken place was also to be quashed.(iii) Accordingly, they directed the case to be placed before the Chief Justice for nominating a Bench under Rule 11 of Chapter I of the High Court Rul...
Omprakash Vs. Ramcharan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP52
Shiv Dayal, C.J.1. This case has come up before us on reference by the learned single Judge on the question whether compensation is payable to the tenant under Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, even when the decree for eviction is made not only on the ground contained in Section 12 (1) (f) but also on other grounds. He thought that conflicting views were expressed in Dindayal v. Vimalchand (1973 MPLJ 465) : (AIR 1973 Madh Pra 299), and Nathuram v. Gyanchand (Civil Second Appeal No. 292 of 1975 decided on 20-12-1975) (Madh Pra).2. In the plaintiff's suit for eviction on several grounds contained in Section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the trial Court passed a decree for eviction under Cls. (a) and (f) of Section 12 (1) of the Act. The defendant appealed. The learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the appeal but made the following direction:--'The executing Court, while executing the decree ...
Puranchand and anr. Vs. Anandi Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1977
Reported in: AIR1978MP32
G.L. Oza, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 89-A of 1969 confirming the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 145 of 1965 dismissing the plaintiff-appellants' suit for eviction, 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction on the grounds covered by Section 12 (1) (a), (c), (e) and (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the defendant-respondent. TheCourts below dismissed the claim as fareviction is concerned. 3. The respondent-defendant is in occupation of two rooms on the ground floor in house No. 2/1884 situate at Lohiya Bazar. Lashkar. At one time, the whole house vested in the management of the Managing Officer-cum-Cus-todian. Gwalior, as this house was declared as an evacuee property. The respondent-defendant was inducte...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Mst. Kallo Maula Shah and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1977
Reported in: AIR1977MP257; 1977MPLJ583
C. M. Lodha, J. 1. The following question has been referred by one of us (U. N. Bhachawat J.) to a larger Bench:--'Whether an order passed on an application under Section 18 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act is appealable or revisable?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the revision are these:--The plaintiff non-applicant filed a suit in respect of the house in question against the applicant and non-applicant No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) on the ground that the accommodation had become unsafe for human habitation and was required, bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which could not be carried out without the accommodation being vacated. The fourth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior decreed the suit on 24-2-1967 in the following terms:-- 'The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 do place the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit house by 24-2-1966 to enable them to do the repairs. After the defendantsdelivered possession as directed above...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›