Madhya Pradesh Court June 1991 Judgments
Shankarlal and anr. Vs. Onkarlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ822
S.D. Jhan, J.1. This second appeal byplaintiffs who were unsuccessful in their claim for eviction in the two courts below was by order dated 5-11-85 admitted for final hearing on the substantial question of law set out below:--'Whether on facts and circumstances of the case defendant has acquired suitable vacant accommodation for residence and plaintiffs are entitled to eviction under Section 12(1)(i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act?'2. The plaintiffs case in brief is that they are owner of the house bearing No. 2, Kanoongo Bakhal, Indore. The defendant is a tenant of one room and sari for residential purpose on the first floor of the plaintiffs' commences from the first of every month according to English Calendar. The plaintiffs claimed for eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(e) and (i) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (here-in-after called the Act) -- Bona fide requirement for residence for himself and for any member of his family and there being no...
Tag this Judgment!Leela Shanker Vs. Bhagwandas and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC165
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.8.1985 of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal passed in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1983 arising out of the judgment and order dated 19.7.1983 of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhopal passed in Cr. Case No. 2436/84, whereby conviction of the accused under Section 438 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for two months has been confirmed.2. Brief history of the case are that non-applicant No. 1 Bhagwandas filed a complaint against accused on 21.5.1978 with the assertions that Maltibai is his married wife. She was missing from his house from 12.4.1977, and was subsequently found in the company of accused who was keeping her as his wife despite known edge that Maltibai is wife of the complainant. A child has also been begotten from that relationship. The accused detailed his wife against his wishes and consent.3. The accused abjured the guilt ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Vs. Smt. Godaveribai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ843
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-12-1990, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. 90(7) 10/90, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. dated 4-5-1990 was dismissed.2. The short facts of the case are that the present non-applicant Smt. Godaveribai had filed an application under Section 23-A(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act before the lower Court for seeking eviction of house No. B-3 situated in Saket Nagar, Indore on the ground of bona fide need for residence of herself and her family members. The lower Court issued a, notice of the eviction application against the present applicant but the notice was not served on the applicant himself. Instead of a report was given by the process-server that he had gone to the address given for serving the notice on the respondent but the respondent was found absent. However, his father Shri Ramgopal Khandelwal was present who took th...
Tag this Judgment!Chouthmal Vs. Sunderlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP192; 1991(0)MPLJ849
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Second Appeal No. 194 of 1990 and Misc. Second Appeal No. 195 of 1990 filed against the order dated 2-5-1990 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 38 of 1989 (C.R.A. No. 17-A/1990) and Civil Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 1989 (C.R.A. No. 16-A/1990) confirming the order dated 2-5-1989 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Mandsaur in Execution Case No. 437-A/82 x 85.2. The facts of the case are that the house belonging to respondent No. 1 Sundcrlal, respondent No. 2 Surajmal and respondent No. 3 Kiranmal was mortgaged to respondent No.4 Tahir Ali on 2-l-1963 for Rs. 3500/- by executing a mortgage deed. Another mortgage deed was executed on 5-3-1965 and Rs. 1200/- were taken by the mortgagors. A suit for redemption of the mortgage was filed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and a decree was passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 16-1-1985. Thereafter th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal and ors. Vs. Babulal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP6; 1991(0)MPLJ966
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal is by the auction purchasers, under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They are aggrieved by the action of the receiver -- forfeiting their one-fourth deposit of the bid money for alleged breach of the terms of the auction in not depositing remaining sum of the bid within thirty days of the auction.2. The applicants first approached the Insolvency Court by an application under Section 68 of the Act which was allowed and the forfeiture was set aside with directions to the receiver to return the one-fourth deposit. The receiver preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Act to the Court of the District Judge, Raipur, who by order dated 4-3-1982 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Insolvency Court and upholding the action of the receiver of forfeiture of one-fourth deposit. The auction purchasers have, therefore, approached this Court in this appeal.3. By order passed on 25-3-1974, the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vibha Shrivastava Vs. Dinesh Kumar Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1991MP346; I(1992)DMC337; 1991(0)MPLJ975
D.M. Dharmadhikar, J.1. This case is a typical instance of matrimonial mal-adjustment between couples who are both employed in service at two different places. The wife/ appellant is serving as a teacher in a private school at Rajnandgaon. The husband/respondent is working as Field Supervisor in a Rural Bank in village Latabod, in Rajnandgaon district. They were married on 14-7-1986 and at the time of their marriage also they were employed. For a few months after the marriage they had a happy married life and now they have a daughter aged about 3 years. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home on 16th Nov., of 1986 when he was away on his duty. Before leaving the matrimonial home she had sent a letter of resignation from her service by registered post on 14/11/1986. The complaint of the husband is that thereafter be made several approaches personally, in writing and through his relations to persuade the wife to return to the matrimonial home but she persistently ref...
Tag this Judgment!Kulwant Singh (Nk.) S/O Sardar Sadhu Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ985
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhkari, J.1. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of following Misc. Petitions which were heard together :-(1) M. P. No. 2320 of 1987 (Hav. Kashmir Singh 3362069 and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.)(2) M. P. No. 170 of 1990 (3369816 Hav. Harisingh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.)(3) M. P. No. 171 of 1990 (3368252 Sep. Balwinder Singh v. Union of India and Ors.)(4) M. P. No. 172 of 1990 (3363144 Nk. Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.)(5) M.P. No. 173 of 1990 (No. 3370117 Nk. Kuldeep Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.).2. We have taken up the present petition for decision first because the points common in all the above petitions were argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of contentions and grounds raised in this petition.3. The petition is filed challenging conviction and sentences of the petitioners in Court Martial proceedings for alleged offences said to have been committed by them Under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Badan Singh Deep Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ353
ORDERK.K. Varma, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the question whether M.P. No. 629/1991 and M. P. No. 739/91 are to be admitted for hearing parties in the High Court under Article 226, or whether the petitioners can be so heard only before the State Administrative Tribunal, constituted for the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The petitioners challenge the orders dated 2-1-1991 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, retiring them on superannuation from the Government Service (on their attaining the age of 58 years) on the dates designated in the order. Their contention is that their age of superannuation is 60 years under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 154 framed under Madhya Bharat Panchayat Vidhan, Samvat 2006 (Annexure P-4).3. In compliance of the order No. 255 dated 15-1-1959 of the Collector, Bhind, the Secretary of the Mandal Panchayat, Bhind, passed on order on 15-1-1959 giving temporary appointments to the petitioners as Gram Panc...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Lal Shankar Keer Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-1991
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ814
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a Kewat and is operating the ferry, with his fellow men at 'Samarsa Ghat', has challenged the auction notice for the year 1991-92, dated 28-4-1991 (Annexure P/1) and prayed for a rule nisi to quash the auction of plying the ferry.,2. The petitioner's case is that the respondent No. 2 collects ferry tolls by a system of arrangement between respondent No. 2 and the unregistered Society of 'Keers' who are plying boats since generations and are getting percentage out of the tolls collected. The respondent No. 2, by a resolution . dated 30-3-1990, changed this arrangement, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority (the Collector) under the provisions of the M. P. Panchayat Act 1981 (for short, the 'Act'), which was suspended by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 28-4-1990 (Annexure P/2); the Prescribed Authority for warded a copy of the order Passed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›